Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Tourism Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
Elaborating on grounded theory in tourism research
Xavier Matteucci a,⇑, Juergen Gnoth b
a
b
MODUL University Vienna, Am Kahlenberg 1, 1190 Vienna, Austria
Marketing Department, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 29 November 2015
Revised 3 May 2017
Accepted 9 May 2017
Available online 17 May 2017
Keywords:
Qualitative research
Grounded theory
Constructivism
Ontology
Epistemology
Ethical approximation
a b s t r a c t
Grounded theory method has been gaining momentum within qualitative tourism
research. However, different versions of grounded theory exist, and tourism researchers
rarely address this variety in their work. This article addresses this issue and engages with
grounded theory’s core tenets, its epistemological and ontological underpinnings, and its
contribution to theory building. We present an overview of grounded theory studies in
tourism. In light of the trends in qualitative research towards a blurring of genres and creativity, we also suggest that Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy may take grounded theory
researchers to new research territories. In our view, the constructivist orientation to
grounded theory, impregnated with Deleuzian thinking, is seen as a methodological tool
most capable of facilitating positive change.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Grounded theory has been gaining momentum as a methodological approach among tourism researchers. Its popularity
may be attributed to clear methodological procedures, which are particularly attractive to novice researchers (Mehmetoglu
& Altinay, 2006). Researchers may also enjoy engaging with grounded theory because they are able to craft their own categories instead of refining extant ones (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Another reason for this popularity in tourism may be due
to grounded theory’s conception as a more ‘‘objective” way of doing qualitative inquiry (Charmaz, 2008a). Qualitative
researchers operating within the largely dominating positivistic and post-positivistic cultures of their tourism management
departments (Hollinshead, 2004) may have seen in grounded theory a method that could be considered competitive with
those used by their quantitative counterparts. They particularly appreciate that it opens up opportunities for new theory
building (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in areas of little extant research or where new insights are needed.
Although grounded theory articles are now more frequently published in tourism journals, a limited number of researchers critically discuss the approach they employ. This lack of reflection is problematic and may thwart the ambitions of many
novice researchers who wish to embark on grounded theory research projects. Worse, the lack of critical reflection on the
method and its application may even erode the status of grounded theory, as an emerging and respected research strategy,
among the tourism scientific community.
The objective of this article is fourfold. First, we attempt to explicate what the grounded theory method is about. Here, its
core tenets, the concepts of theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation, comparative analysis, and coding procedure are
addressed, followed by a presentation of the different versions of grounded theory. Second, we present an overview of
grounded theory studies in tourism. This literature review will help us point to a number of issues on the use of grounded
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xavier.matteucci@modul.ac.at (X. Matteucci), juergen.gnoth@otago.ac.nz (J. Gnoth).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.05.003
0160-7383/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
50
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
theory by tourism scholars. Third, drawing upon the wider literature, we discuss grounded theory’s ontological and epistemological underpinnings. We will contrast grounded theory with critical realism and argue that, despite some differences,
critical realists, post-positivists, and constructivist grounded theorists share a similar worldview. Such a discussion is
deemed important because few tourism researchers discuss the contribution of the grounded theory method to theory building, which may be subject to criticism (Tribe, Xiao, & Chambers, 2012). Furthermore, as Bryant (2009) remarks, early career
researchers are increasingly expected to position themselves against the current debates in the methodological literature.
Fourth, given recent calls within tourism research to encourage researchers to methodologically experiment beyond their
disciplinary boundaries (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015), and to consider new modes of knowing guided by ethics
(Pritchard, Morgan, & Ateljevic, 2011), we suggest that a Deleuzian reading may take grounded theory in a new performative
direction. This new interpretive empirical work is described as performative because it involves collaborative constructions
of meaning which may be unsettling, empowering, and transformative. Tourism researchers working closely with communities such as those operating within policy development, volunteer tourism, creative tourism, and social tourism may be
looking for empowering research practices that could open up exciting avenues. Therefore, plugging grounded theory into
Deleuzian philosophy, we argue, may stimulate researchers to engage creatively with the world through practices of ethical
approximation.
A Deleuzian inspired inquiry intimates new ways of thinking research (Mazzei & McCoy, 2010) which reminds us of the
participatory paradigm for its emphasis on embodied ways of knowing in a world in which human subjects and matter are
treated as equal. Tourism can forcefully shape natural landscapes and social relationships as evidenced in studies of tourism
impacts. It is urgent that the power of tourism be deployed to do good for communities, tourists, and the natural environments where people and other species—sometimes endangered—live. In our view, a constructivist/constructionist orientation to grounded theory, impregnated with Deleuzian thinking, is a methodological tool most capable of facilitating
positive change. We hope, therefore, to clarify a number of grey areas around grounded theory, such as the epistemological
and ontological positions of grounded theorists, and we also hope that the ideas expounded here will generate further
methodological discussions.
Grounded theory method
Grounded theory was formulated in the late 1960s by American sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, in an
attempt to provide an alternative to the dominant positivistic research methodologies in the field of sociology. Despite this
attempt, ironically, grounded theory has been often relegated to being considered the most modernist and positivistic
approach of all interpretive methods (Charmaz, 2008a). Nevertheless, Glaser and Strauss’s merit, Charmaz argues, has been
to inspire successive generations of qualitative researchers in disciplines—such as tourism—hitherto dominated by positivistic research. Since publishing The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967, Glaser and Strauss have followed different paths in
elaborating the method. To complicate the matter, Glaser and Strauss have not been the only ones to rework the original text,
as a number of other scholars (e.g. Clarke, 2005) have cast their own interpretations upon this approach. Of particular relevance is the constructivist orientation by Kathy Charmaz (2000, 2011), which she distinguishes from the original concept of
grounded theory, but also from Glaser’s objectivist (1992) and Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) post-positivist versions. Regardless of variations in approach, Charmaz (2011, p. 361) explains grounded theory as ‘‘an iterative, comparative, interactive,
and abductive method”. The aim of the method, like other qualitative research approaches, is not to build universal laws
but to develop fresh insights about a phenomenon and to offer theoretical propositions where little is known.
So what makes grounded theory a distinctive method? Based on their reading of the Discovery book, Gibson and Hartman
(2014) highlight five core principles of the method, namely openness, explanatory power, generation vs. justification, theory
structure, and the research process. Openness means that research is not led by a particular theoretical framework and that
research questions should remain open throughout the enquiry. Explanatory power means that work should be credible and
relevant to people; grounded theory should be shaped by local needs (Denzin, 2007). Subsequently, grounded theory focuses
on gaining insights or constructing knowledge about phenomena, not on justifying preconceived ideas. Theory structure
refers to a set of theoretical propositions that are linked to core categories, whereby categories need to be defined and related
to other categories. The fifth principle demands the research process to be flexible and iterative, consisting of various phases
throughout which data is coded and interpreted.
The constant comparison of data—a corner stone of grounded theory—is at the heart of this cyclical research process. Data
in the form of statements, stories, and incidents are respectively compared with other statements, stories, and incidents.
Likewise, interview one is compared to interview two, and then interview two is compared to interview three, which is also
compared to interview one, and so on, until common patterns emerge. Moreover, this cyclical fashion of data analysis goes
hand in hand with what has been referred to as theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Theoretical sampling means
that new research participants or information are purposefully sought based on the findings of previous data analysis. The
problem of theoretical sampling is that it requires researchers to enter and exit the field on a regular basis (Connell & Lowe,
1997)—a process which may not be easy when researchers only have a week or two to collect data outside their region of
residence. In other words, collecting data over too short a period of time does not allow researchers to transcribe and analyze
in subsequent waves, in order to exploit the full potential of theoretical sampling; this processual issue may impinge upon
the quality of the analysis or the goodness of fit. Charmaz (2006) further clarifies that theoretical sampling differs from initial
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
51
sampling; theoretical sampling is not used to establish suitable selection criteria before entering the field. Instead, theoretical sampling is used to search for people and cases to further elaborate theoretical categories. Theoretical sampling is sometimes confused with purposive sampling. For example, in their study in the Swiss alpine village of Alvaneu, Kianicka,
Buchecker, Hunziker, and Müller-Böker (2006) use what they describe to be theoretical sampling at the outset of their
research to recruit participants with a particular profile. Instead of true theoretical sampling, however, these researchers
were actually using purposive sampling to locate their participants based on a set of predefined criteria (e.g. age, gender,
and duration of stay) to achieve greater variability of responses; sampling was not based on ongoing development of categories in this study, as would be the case in theoretical sampling.
Grounded theory research involves continuous iteration between data collection and analysis, and is deemed complete
once theoretical saturation has been reached—that is, when neither new theoretical insights nor new properties of core categories emerge during the theory development process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Due to the cyclical process, data analysis
starts early, long before all data are fully collected. In grounded theory, the coding procedure varies from two to three distinctive steps. The first step of coding involves the ‘‘breaking down of data into distinct units of meaning” (Goulding, 1999, p.
9), this is usually referred to as open coding (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or initial coding (Charmaz,
2006). Due to the vast number of codes that initial coding usually generates, Charmaz suggests selecting the most useful analytical codes. This step is called focused coding. A third type is either called axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1978), which involves making connections between codes in order to form
categories. This third layer develops an understanding of the conditions that give rise to the categories, their context, and
their interactions and consequences. Then, by relating categories to each other, researchers are able to elaborate substantive
theoretical propositions (or concepts). A critique of this process comes from Thomas and James (2006), who see grounded
theory as rigid machinery likely to asphyxiate researchers’ creativity. They argue that grounded theory procedures seem
to impose rationality over emotions and intuition, which are inherent in creative interpretation. While grounded theorists
suggest the breaking down of data into small units of meaning through successive layers of coding, the associated risk is that
researchers may not make inferences directly from the research participants’ narratives, but from decontextualised fragments of data (initial codes). Thus, Thomas and James (2006) contend, this approach bears the risk of taking researchers further away from the data they seek to closely describe.
Grounded theory can be used as a method for theory building; by coding at various levels, the coder takes elements out of
sequence and highlights them as part of the informant’s sequence. Yet, by this very act, the coder makes it more ‘‘flexible” as
a semantic unit. Indeed, it becomes a value or manifold, the potential of which can help form value in the future (Williams,
2011). Coding across different data sources and at different levels of abstraction are incidents of abductive creativity,
enabling connections resulting in hitherto non-existent theory, as the coder forms understanding: by receiving intuitive
energy to reconnect the elements (or codes) in such a way that they (a) easily flow back into the informant’s own
meaning-creation process, and (b) connect in such a way that the elements represent an understanding of what the informant experiences. This way of doing grounded theory requires hypothetical inference ‘‘which starts with an empirical phenomenon and proceeds to a general statement which explains the observed phenomenon” (Kelle, 2005, p. 12). This logical
form of reasoning has been associated with early 20th century philosopher Charles Peirce’s (1992) principles of abduction.
The abductive process of inquiry involves three steps (Reichertz, 2007): The first inductive step consists of identifying
patterns of meaning in the data. The second step is deductive, in that it involves formulating a hypothesis and deriving consequences from the hypothesis. In the third (inductive) step, the researcher searches for facts that will verify the hypothesis.
This reasoning approach is said to be looser, or more flexible, than the deductive, or even inductive, logics of inquiry (Willis,
2007) because it relies on conjunctures and intuitive leaps to understand a phenomenon in a new way. When they interact
with their data through comparative analysis (in which events are juxtaposed) and iterative data collection, grounded theorists may identify conjunctures (particularly through the step of theoretical coding), which may enable them to intuitively
grasp the meaning of a phenomenon. Charmaz (2008b, p. 157) suggests that researchers may ‘‘imagine all possible theoretical accounts for the observed data.” At this stage, the meaning derived is tentative, and grounded theorists need to check
their theoretical ideas (turned into hypotheses) by scrutinizing their current data or/and by collecting further information.
However, what remains unclear is how hypothetical ideas are conceived. Grounded theorists (e.g. Glaser, 1978) would argue
that theoretical sensitivity, which involves rational thinking (based on theoretical knowledge) and some imagination, plays
the trick in this endeavor. As von Glasersfeld (2001, p. 35) remarks, this mysterious cognitive (and embodied) process
‘‘has so far defied rational explanation”. While analogy seems to play a role in this processing, von Glasersfeld concedes, this
intuitive jump or hunch intimates a transcendental act of creation.
Different versions of grounded theory
Since Glaser and Strauss’ seminal book (1967), three main versions of grounded theory have emerged; Charmaz (2011)
describes them as objectivist, post-positivist, and constructivist. The ontological and epistemological assumptions and key
characteristics of each of the three versions are summarised in Table 1. These versions are reflected in three of the five major
research paradigms currently shaping qualitative research, identified by Lincoln, Lynham, and Guba (2011): positivist (objectivist), post-positivist, and constructivist-interpretive; the other two paradigms (yet unrepresented in grounded theory,
although adaptations to suit these paradigms exist) are critical theory and the participatory paradigm. Drawing from
Guba (1990) and Denzin and Lincoln (2008), p. 31) explain a paradigm as a ‘‘basic set of beliefs that guides action”.
52
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
Table 1
Characteristics of the different versions of grounded theory (based on Charmaz, 2008a, 2008b, 2011).
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodological
characteristics
Objectivist GT
Post-positivist GT
Constructivist GT
Realism
Positivist empiricism/Objectivism
– Researcher
as
a
neutral
observer
– Value-free inquiry
– Emergence
– Data speak for themselves
– Aims at the discovery of
abstract generalizations
– Answers why questions
– Rigorous coding procedure
drives the research
– The number of cases studied
make data objective
– Conducting
the
literature
review after the data analysis
Realism
Pragmatism
– Reflexive researcher
– Value-laden inquiry
– Application of preconceived analytical
framework to data
– Aiming at the discovery of middle-range
theories
– Defining variation in the research
findings
– Conducting literature review before,
during, and after the data analysis
Realism
Relativism
– Reflexive researcher
– Value-laden inquiry
– Emergence from interactions
– Aiming at the construction of middlerange theories
– Generalizations are contingent, agentic,
and conditional
– Attempting to answer what and how
questions
– Defining variation in the research
findings
– Flexible analytical procedures
– Conducting literature review before,
during, and after the data analysis
– Welcoming storytelling
Lincoln et al. (2011) distinguish four basic beliefs of a paradigm: these are concerned with questions about the nature of
being (ontology), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), the ways of learning about the world (methodology), and the
question about the role of values (axiology). Each is important in shaping research practices and outcomes.
Objectivist grounded theory is linked to Glaser’s classic grounded theory. Holton (2007, p. 268), a proponent of the Glaserian perspective, argues that the methodology transcends the confinement of any research paradigm, whereby grounded
theory accommodates any ontological and epistemological views ‘‘without having to espouse any one perspective”. This
claim is supported with the premises that a researcher’s bias is treated as a variable amongst others, and that primacy is
given to its process and rigorous coding procedure driving the research (Glaser, 2002). Glaser also claims that classic
grounded theorists collect and produce ‘‘objective” data by adopting a passive role in interviewing informants, by looking
at many cases of the same phenomenon, and by developing abstract categories. A core tenet of Glaser and Strauss (1967)
method relies on the emergence of categories from the data; for data to emerge, Glaser suggests that researchers should
ignore the literature on the topic they study. This position has been criticized by a number of qualitative researchers (e.g.
Bryant, 2003; Charmaz, 2006; Kelle, 2005; Thomas & James, 2006), who equate this epistemological stance with the positivistic view that reality can be captured ‘as it is’. Indeed, ignoring the literature does not make researchers neutral analysts—as if researchers could simply free their mind from any preconceptions about research practices and the topic
under scrutiny. Besides, researchers would not be able to decide on what (and how) to research, if they did not inform themselves about a topic in the first place.
Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) are associated with the post-positivist version of grounded theory, in that they acknowledge the fluid nature of reality and are skeptical about the idea that we can learn about the world with certainty. The application of a coding paradigm, which consists of a preconceived analytical framework to data, makes post-positivist grounded
theory different to the other two versions, in that less emphasis is put on emergence of concepts (Charmaz, 2008b, 2011),
this way of doing qualitative data analysis relies more on deductive than inductive reasoning. The coding paradigm suggested by Strauss and Corbin corresponds to a model of action (or matrix), which accounts for conditions, interactions, tactics, and consequences, and which attempts to help researchers structure their data and more systematically explore the
connections between their codes. Whereas Strauss and Corbin recognize the influence of human values on research practices, Glaser defends a value-free inquiry. Also, while Strauss and Corbin’s approach suits the study of micro-sociological contexts (Kelle, 2005), Glaser’s approach aims at abstract theoretical generalizations, which have predictive power. However,
the third edition of Basics of Qualitative Research (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) marks an epistemological shift away from the first
two more objectivist editions (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998), whereby Corbin now acknowledges multiple realities,
embraces reflexivity, and adopts a more flexible position towards the analytical procedures to study phenomena, which
brings Corbin closer to Charmaz’s constructivism (Charmaz, 2011).
The constructivist version of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006, 2008a, 2011) posits that the research process emerges
from interactions, that data production and data analysis are socially constructed, and that the goal of research is to enhance
contextualised understanding. Constructivist grounded theorists seek to get as close as possible to their data (e.g. by analyzing data line by line or word by word, describing actions, using in vivo codes), this way, constructivists can learn ‘‘how participants’ meanings and actions are connected to larger discourses and social structures of which they may be unaware”
(Charmaz & Bryant, 2016, p. 350). Because we are part of the world we study, in this version of the method, researchers
are encouraged to engage in reflexivity, meaning that researchers’ position and prior knowledge ought to be scrutinized.
It is worth noting that, contrary to Lincoln et al. (2011) who associate constructivism with relativist ontology, Charmaz presents constructivist grounded theory as having a realist ontology (a point that we address later in this paper).
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
53
Grounded theory in tourism research
Grounded theory method is deemed to be valuable to tourism researchers because:
grounded theory can offer a new level of understanding to studies of tourists and their interactions with the tourist
milieu. Grounded theory can generate explanations of events and relationships reflecting lived experiences on individuals, groups and processes central to the tourist experience.
[Jennings & Junek, 2007, p. 202]
A review of grounded theory studies in tourism indicates that few researchers have opted for one version only of the
method, but have instead drawn from multiple sources to explain and justify its use. Indeed, most researchers have drawn
from at least two versions of grounded theory, including that featured in the Discovery book (1967), the later elaborations of
both Glaser (1978, 1992) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), and Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist version, thus instilling
some ambiguity as to whether tourism researchers perceive any significant differences between these approaches. Outside
the tourism context, Bryant (2009, p. 10) similarly notes that some researchers have claimed adherence to either Glaser or
Strauss, whereas others have ‘‘seemed to be unaware of the split between the founders or simply ignored it”. Considering
trends in qualitative research towards pluralism and hybrid forms of inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), the fact that tourism
researchers draw from multiple authors is not an issue in itself; however, for the sake of methodological acumen, it would be
informative if tourism scholars painstakingly discussed their paradigmatic assumptions and research actions. Table 2 provides a non-exhaustive overview of past grounded theory publications in tourism. The 48 articles featured in this table
account for empirical work in which grounded theory is clearly articulated as guiding the inquiry. For example, tourism
papers acknowledging a grounded theory approach by referring to key authors such as Glaser and Strauss (1967) or
Strauss and Corbin (1998) were included.
The studies featured in Table 2 proceed from a systematic literature search in various electronic databases. Using keywords such as ‘‘grounded theory”, ‘‘constructivist grounded theory”, ‘‘Glaser”, ‘‘Strauss and Corbin” and ‘‘Charmaz”, and
without limiting our search to a particular period of time, we searched for studies in the three leading tourism journals
(based on the SCImago Journal Rank 2015), which welcome qualitative papers, namely Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism
Management, and the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. However, we did not limit our search to these three journals, and we also
searched for papers published in other journals through Google Scholar. To locate tourism studies only, we combined the
word ‘‘tourism” to the aforementioned keywords. The first author read all works listed in Table 2 and sought to primarily
identify whether a particular version of grounded theory was clearly demarcated as guiding the inquiries, and whether
authors adhered to, and/or engaged with, a particular paradigmatic position. It should be noted that it was not our intention
to check whether authors consistently applied the method as per the proponents they drew from. While we believe that such
a thorough methodological analysis would be a worthwhile endeavor (for an initial attempt, see Stumpf, Sandstrom, &
Swanger, 2016), we were primarily concerned with the researchers’ decisions over a version of grounded theory, and with
ontological and epistemological considerations.
Whereas 42 percent of the work in Table 2 does not clearly follow a particular version of grounded theory, the remaining
work includes researchers who have opted for one version only, namely the Glaserian approach (objectivist grounded theory,
10%), the Strauss and Corbin approach (post-positivist grounded theory, 19%), the approach outlined in the Discovery book
from Glaser and Strauss (10%), or Charmaz’s constructivist version (19%). In their recent review of 31 grounded theory papers
in tourism, Stumpf et al. (2016) similarly remark that many researchers do not demarcate the version they employ. The oldest paper we have identified was published by Riley in 1995, following Strauss and Corbin’s version. Since then, there has
been a steady increase in the number of papers published in tourism outlets, with the vast majority published after 2005.
Compared to other variants, constructivist grounded theory has received much attention in the last six years. This may be
Table 2
Grounded theory versions informing tourism researchers.
Versions of grounded theory
Authors
Original book (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Green and Chalip (1998), Johnston (2014), Kianicka et al. (2006), Tung and Ritchie (2011), Woodside et al.
(2004)
Goulding (2000), Goulding and Shankar (2011), Hyde and Olesen (2011), Kensbock and Jennings (2011),
Stumpf and Swanger (2015)
Daengbuppha, Hemmington, and Wilkes (2006), Hardy (2005), Heung, Kucukusta, and Song (2011),
Hunter-Jones (2005), Kim, Eves, and Scarles (2009), Mehmetoglu and Altinay (2006), Nimrod (2008),
Pavelka and Draper (2015), Riley (1995)
Berdychevsky, Gibson, and Poria (2013), Kensbock, Jennings, Baily, and Patiar (2016), Liggett, McIntosh,
Thompson, and Storey (2011), Lynch (2005), Matteucci (2014), Matteucci and Filep (2017),
Mostafanezhad (2013), Nyaupane and Poudel (2012), Ponting and McDonald (2013)
Connell and Lowe (1997), Cunningham (2006), Decrop and Snelders (2004), Dodd and Beverland (2001),
Filieri (2016), Gao, Zhang, and L’espoir Decosta (2012), Ho, Lin, and Chen (2012), Hottola (2004), Hsu, Cai,
and Wong (2007), Jiang and Tribe (2009), Kim and Jamal (2007), Lee and Bai (2016), Lepp (2007),
Lumsdon and McGrath (2011), Martin and Woodside (2008), Minnaert (2014), Papathanassis and Knolle
(2011), Ruiz-Ballesteros (2011), Stevensen, Airey, and Miller (2008), Tan, Kung, and Luh (2013)
Objectivist GT (Glaser, 1978, and his later
work)
Post-positivist GT (Strauss & Corbin,
1990, 1998)
Constructivist GT (Charmaz, 2000, 2006,
and her later work)
Unclear version guiding the research
54
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
due to a growing interest on the part of tourism researchers in constructivist modes of inquiry, and to the influence of
Charmaz (2006) book on grounded theory, which established a well-known constructivist orientation in the literature.
Furthermore, very few researchers (listed in Table 2) explain their choice of one version over another. This lack of clarity
may indicate that many tourism researchers are themselves confused about the status of grounded theory methodology. An
example of this confusion is found in Lumsdon and McGrath (2011) insightful paper on slow travel, in which these authors
see their work as constructivist but also claim that they are adopting Glaser’s elaboration of the grounded theory method and
that their inductive approach is in line with Strauss and Corbin’s approach. These authors do not explicate their choices, and
do not address issues of reflexivity or relativism. Furthermore, their use of template analysis, which allows researchers to
define a priori themes before coding their textual data, alludes to the use of a theoretical framework as suggested by
Strauss and Corbin (1990).
While few tourism researchers engage in philosophical discussions of epistemology and ontology, some acknowledge a
constructivist orientation and briefly explain their philosophical position (e.g. Matteucci, 2014). This dearth of philosophical
engagement is not limited to grounded theory researchers, as Tribe et al. (2012) and also Pritchard et al. (2011) remark that
epistemological and ontological discussions are generally scarce in tourism research. Almost 20 years ago, Goulding (1998)
had already called for more transparency in researchers’ decisions to opt for a grounded theory approach. Scholars from
other disciplines like nursing (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1996) and the psychology of sport and exercise (Holt & Tamminen,
2010) have similarly warned that researchers in these fields were expected to specify which version of grounded theory they
followed. Although today some grounded theorists see grounded theory as a family of methods (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007),
tourism researchers ought to be cautious not to assume that all versions have similar underpinnings.
Philosophical underpinnings of grounded theory
The previous section revealed that a limited number of tourism researchers position themselves philosophically. This is
problematic because, as Birks and Mills (2015) argue, the philosophical positioning determines the researcher’s methodological approach, in particular her position in the field and in reporting study findings. The constructivist stance, which
acknowledges subjectivities, requires a reporting style that weaves the researcher’s voice into the text. Acknowledging
the role of the researcher means recognizing that research processes and outputs are shaped by human beings’ experiences,
decisions, and interpretations. Different writing styles, therefore, may be observed, depending upon whether one follows a
more objectivist approach (e.g. Woodside, MacDonald, & Burford, 2004) or a constructivist one (e.g. Mostafanezhad, 2013).
Researchers who adhere to constructivist grounded theory and who report their work in a neutral, positivistic style of writing are at odds with the constructivist philosophy. As Willis (2007) puts it, hiding behind the third person is deceitful, in that
it is like pretending to be objective while we are not. The acknowledgment of the role of the researcher in the research process calls for two observations. First, the use of the first person in reporting constructivist scholarly work is appropriate and
legitimate. Second, the authority of the first person gives writers some credibility as to their levels of confidence and commitment to their findings and ideas (Hyland, 2002).
Whether objectivist, post-positivist, or constructivist, all grounded theory approaches follow a realist ontological position
(Charmaz, 2008a), positing that reality exists independently of the learner (Willis, 2007). Whereas objectivism reflects the
epistemological view that meaning exists in objects independently of consciousness, constructivists believe that human
beings cannot come in direct contact with the external world. Instead, most constructivists are relativist in that they deny
that we can rationally know the external world beyond our experience (von Glasersfeld, 2001). The view that constructivists
can be both ontologically realist and epistemologically relativist has been debated in tourism scholarship (see Botterill, 2014;
Pernecky, 2012, 2014). A word of caution is needed here: constructivists are not a homogenous group, as there are diverse
constructivist/constructionist schools of thought (Riegler, 2005), some make the strict ontological claim that there is no
objective reality out there, whereas others hold that reality exists independently of human perception but deny direct access
to that reality (Andrews, 2012). In other words, some constructivists adopt a relativist stance to make ontological claims,
while others make no ontological claims but epistemological claims only. A point of contention and a source of misunderstanding, in our view, lies in the constructivist claim that reality is multiple, which may convey the idea that constructivists
deny reality.
By reality being ‘‘multiple” it is meant that reality is complex, changing, and multi-perspectival depending on who views
it, from where, and at which point in time. Social scientists neither experience the world directly—that is, without the filters
of their sense organs and their socially acquired values—nor are they isolated from the real world they investigate. To come
to an understanding of what is meaningful to the research participants, of the way they make sense of their subjective experiences, the researcher needs to interact with them and interpret their words and actions. This highlights that researchers
carry their own assumptions and values, which will shape and frame what they do, and hence are approximations. Tourism
is, therefore, socially constructed, and it is precisely these constructions of meaning that make reality multi-perspectival.
Contrary to Platenkamp and Botterill (2013, p. 126) who argue from a critical realist standpoint, we think that ‘‘a reality that
is constituted by perspectives” does not mean that ‘‘reality has disappeared”. In fact, von Glasersfeld (2001, p. 40) asserts that
‘‘constructivism is a theory of knowledge, not of being”. Earlier we noted a contradiction between Charmaz and Lincoln
et al.’s (2011) ontological views with respect to constructivism. This divergence may be due to the way these theorists conceptualize relativism. We suspect, therefore, Charmaz to embrace relativism as a theory of knowledge, whereas Lincoln and
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
55
her colleagues seem to understand relativism as a theory of being. We reiterate the view that constructivist and objectivist
grounded theorists share a common ontological understanding, but differ in their epistemological position.
Following a recent critical realist’s critique of constructivism in tourism (see Botterill, 2014), we briefly contrast critical
realism to grounded theory, and argue that critical realists and post-positivist and constructivist grounded theorists share a
very similar worldview. Critical realism is a philosophical stream, which lies between the extreme ends of the qualitative
research paradigm spectrum (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Like grounded theorists, critical realists recognize that reality is
socially constructed and that ‘‘reality is chaotic and irrational to our mind,” thus making it ‘‘impossible to understand the
whole of reality” (Platenkamp & Botterill, 2013, pp. 123–24). Post-positivist and constructivist grounded theorists and critical realists foreground ontology (reality exists independently of our mind) over a relativist epistemology (reality is socially
constructed). They also agree on the fact that reality is an open-system which entails that phenomena are not constant; reality is complex, temporal, and changing (cf. pragmatism), as exemplified in the river metaphor of reality: ‘‘reality flows like a
river in which the exact contents of the water are never the same” (Platenkamp & Botterill, 2013, p. 118). Further commonalities are visible in the concepts of ‘‘plausible accounts” and ‘‘practically adequate accounts” that we will now address.
Theory building and grounded theory
A point that few researchers address when doing grounded theory is its role in theory building. The different epistemological positions defended by grounded theorists make the answer to the question of What is theory? problematic. The interpretive approach to theory prioritizes understanding over explanation. Following the interpretive tradition, tourism scholars
Dann, Nash, and Pearce (1988, p. 4) accordingly define theory as a ‘‘body of logically interconnected propositions which provides an interpretive basis for understanding phenomena”. Rather than grappling with the contested issues around the
essence of theory, and more relevant to the practice of interpretive inquiry, Charmaz (2006, p. 148) prefers to use the verb
theorizing: ‘‘in research practice, theorizing means being eclectic, drawing on what works, defining what fits”. Theory should
be understood as a fluid concept that is in constant evolution due to cumulative contributions by scholars.
Grounded theory has often been described as a useful method to generate theories. What kind of theories does it generate? It has been argued (e.g. Charmaz, 2006) that grounded theory makes the confirmation of emergent ideas possible in the
context of a substantive theory (also referred to as middle-range theory) defined as ‘‘an empirical area of sociological inquiry
and specific to groups and place” (Lempert, 2007, p. 246). It has also been argued (e.g. Glaser, 2007) that the integration of
substantive theories may lead to the development of a formal theory. Contrary to a substantive theory, a formal theory has a
much broader reach and applies across various contexts. Claims about the theory-generating power of grounded theory are
found in the writings of proponents of all three variants of the method. We feel, however, that positivist grounded theorists
make stronger theory discovery claims than post-positivists and constructivists do. For constructivist grounded theorists, in
particular, the value of theorizing resides in interpretive understanding of phenomena.
Thomas and James (2006) contend that the term theory is too strong a claim in grounded theory. For these commentators,
the grounded theory quest for developing theories is futile and only plays the game of positivistic expectations of scientific
rigor. Charmaz (2008a, p. 401) responds to this critique by saying that in reality ‘‘few grounded theory studies build theory”;
instead, what grounded theorists have to offer are ‘‘plausible accounts” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 132). These plausible accounts are
developed by means of abduction, and Charmaz suggests four criteria to evaluate theoretical propositions: credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. Each of these criteria implies sets of questions that grounded theorists should ask in order
to appraise their work. In a similar fashion, the critical realists’ attempt to ‘‘rescue the explanatory possibility within the
social sciences” is performed through a process of retroduction or abduction (Botterill, 2014, p. 293). Despite the changing
knowledge of things (transitive domain – relative interpretations), critical realists abductively seek to represent a relatively
stable reality (intransitive domain) to produce practically adequate accounts. By means of abductive reasoning, grounded
theorists (and critical realists) thus produce viable explanations of social phenomena.
So far, this discussion has revealed that grounded theorists, and critical realists alike, are concerned with theory construction sought through rational thinking and clear methodological procedures. It has also revealed that grounded theorists and
critical realists commit to similar ontological and epistemological perspectives. Yet, we are not naïve enough to believe that
constructivist grounded theory and critical realism are the same. Contrary to critical realism, constructivist grounded theory
emphasizes the active role of actors and their interactions in the process of knowledge construction. Constructivists are concerned with contextual interpretive understanding and focus on what matters to their research participants, as opposed to
what the phenomenon is about. Thus, constructivists engage in reflexivity, and the goodness of their research is assessed
also through a dialogue with the actors involved. The constructivist development of the grounded theory method thereby
indicates a shift from the strict application of method towards a focus on innovation (Charmaz, 2011) and creativity. This
shift is evocative of a trend towards more freedom in social science inquiry, which opens new routes for ontological, epistemological, and methodological opportunities (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015). We wish to conclude this paper by suggesting
that one of those new routes may be influenced by the work of Gilles Deleuze.
56
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
Future directions and conclusion
In light of the crises which have already punctuated the beginning of the 21st century, a growing number of tourism
scholars (e.g. Caton, 2012; Pritchard et al., 2011) have urged tourism researchers to explore new methodological territories
with the hope that this new scholarship would help create a more just and sustainable world. As the world in which we live
is not static, so has grounded theory evolved from its initial conception. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the current
versions of the grounded theory method will not develop further. In the SAGE handbook of grounded theory (Bryant &
Charmaz, 2007), scholars have exemplified the compatibility of grounded theory with other research frameworks such as
critical theory and ethnography. This leaves many opportunities for tourism researchers to adapt the method to their
own needs and contexts. The future of grounded theory perhaps resides in hybrid forms of inquiry shaped by various
paradigmatic schools of thought. The Deleuzian philosophy of immanence characterized by constant flux, intensities, and
associations may here prove its relevance to grounded theory researchers.
New scholarship in tourism studies may operate within a new ontological and epistemological framework in which
human beings and matter are entangled and both are ascribed agency. Gilles Deleuze with Felix Guattari (1994) uses the
term immanence to refer to an empirical reality that has no transcendental level. Deleuze is a monist who believes that there
is only one substance; hence, everything which exists originates from the same level of existence and should be apprehended
by way of associations or relationships, not by an essence. (Although Deleuze was a monist, for clarity, it is important to note
that, for him, pluralism equals monism). Reality in Deleuzian thought is always in the making. There is no primacy of mind
over matter. Rather, both are contagious and affected by each other. This philosophical position is akin to the subjectiveobjective ontological perspective shared amongst many participatory action researchers who posit that ‘‘mind and the given
cosmos are engaged in a co-creative dance, so that what emerges as reality is the fruit of an interaction of the given cosmos
and the way the mind engages with it” (Heron & Reason, 1997, p. 279). In this mode of being, interlaced elements (researchers, research participants, the forces that constitute them, and other outside forces) move and meet at various points resulting in various juxtapositions (or folds) which may lead to creative insights and approximations that researchers should
present in a convincing manner. In unbounded constitutive systems, grounded theory researchers can at best explore the
intensive processes that give rise to changes, new states, and phenomena.
In a Deleuzian mode of being (or becoming), the grounded theory method is nothing else than a heuristic tool, which
informs us about what methods can do. Grounded theory here is practice, or an experimentation shaped by serendipity
and creativity; it is becoming or transformation. We may call this practice ethical approximation, whereby grounded theorists’ experimentations become a fitting experience by approximation until a theoretical proposition rings true. Researchers’
approximations must thereby be guided by ethical concerns, which center on deconstructing taken-for-granted dualisms
such as humans/matter, mind/body, idealism/materialism, and leisure/work. Thinking and researching the world through
old dichotomies, which fail to account for our interactions with and existence in the world, is no longer tolerable (StPierre, Jackson, & Mazzei, 2016). It is then the cumulative body of experiences that facilitates an understanding of, or a
way of relating to (Wilson & Hollinshead, 2015), social phenomena. However, there is no claim of universals, only a matter
of value that needs to be assessed and judged. There is thus no such thing as ontological unity.
Unity for Deleuze is merely a temporary state in becoming that is reflected upon, like a slice of events or singularities that
is pressed into concepts (or functions) and which can be read as substantive theoretical insights. The role of researchers is,
therefore, to create concepts. A concept has no fixed identity; rather the concept is a force (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994), which
has the power to affect. This power that Deleuze is concerned with resembles the criterion of resonance used in assessing the
trustworthiness of qualitative research findings. Resonance implies that a certain degree of familiarity and credibility with
the research is achieved.
In Deleuzian thought, what thinkers or researchers do are mere constructions. Thus, the act of theorizing can be seen as a
process of adaptation to the world, as ‘‘a way of thinking that may be useful in dealing with a good many problems that face
us today” (von Glasersfeld, 2001, p. 31). A theory is like a tool that helps us apprehend or handle situations; it is always provisional. In our view, plugging Deleuzian thought into grounded theory presents an opportunity for tourism researchers who
wish to go beyond a human-centered understanding of practices and ‘‘connect with the impersonal and transversal forces of
the world” (Cadman, 2009, p. 2) in which they live. Deleuze and Guattari (1994) suggest researchers use their full bodily faculties and imagination in the event of thinking. Engaging sensually with data allows researchers to be affected in ways which
may produce some change in them. An insightful illustration of what it means to work with Deleuze is found in the work of
Lenz Taguchi (2012, p. 274), who argues that by engaging sensually with the data, she experiences ‘‘the entanglement of discourse and matter”, which enables her to imagine and uncover ‘‘a reality that already exists among the multiple realities
being enacted in an event, but which has not been previously ’disclosed’”. Experimenting through other sensual modalities
and imagining what the data may produce are central to a Deleuzian mode of inquiry. We note that Charmaz (2008b) similarly invites researchers to imagine different possible accounts of observed phenomena; however, she does not suggest
embodied ways of knowing.
The immanent non-hierarchical and morphogenetic Deleuzian ontology allows researchers to treat data, research participants, and themselves as equally agentic, contingent, and one whole united and vulnerable substance. Such a vision of the
world appears to be more ethical in nature. We concur with Denzin (2007) who argues that grounded theory is a performative method which can well serve the needs and address the concerns of individuals and communities. Because grounded
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
57
theory, and in particular its constructivist orientation, consists of a collaborative practice engaging researchers, their study
participants, and their environment (matter), grounded theorists are responsible not only for describing the world as they
find it, but they should also aspire to change this world for the better and for the communities they are concerned with.
We argue that researchers need to enter the field, that is, to mingle with their research participants, breathe and feel the
same air, taste the same food, and hear the same sounds. This form of learning about the world involves ‘‘practices of knowing in being” (Barad, 2007, cited in Lenz Taguchi, 2012, p. 271), which is akin to the concept of practical knowing espoused by
Heron and Reason (1997) from a participatory action research perspective. Like practical knowing, knowing-in-being
addresses the question of value (axiology), in that participation implies commitment to our world.
By being performative, grounded theory research invites researchers to engage sensually, morally, and politically with
their world. Experimenting in and with the real world should be transformative and conducive to positive effects, which
in turn should resonate further. Researchers will become aware of, sensitized to, moved by, and committed to social concerns, phenomena, world issues, and so forth. Likewise, research participants will remember, reflect, become aware, and
so on. Both researchers and research participants will communicate, take actions, and therefore affect others, resonating
through various modes of propagation (e.g. by communicating research findings or sharing ideas with communities),
Deleuze and Guattari (1980) refer to non-hierarchical modes of propagation as rhizomes. What are the key ideas that
grounded theorists may take from Deleuze? First, all actors (researchers and matter) are equally agentic, and affecting
and being affected by each other on a same level of existence. This first point implies the second, which views knowledge
as co-constituted through both discursive and embodied practices. This second point calls for sensual explorations of data
through researchers’ bodies, which register (and learn from) smell, sound, touch, and movement amongst other modalities.
Third, embodied practices are transformational, which, as a form of knowing, and an end in itself, is intrinsically rewarding
(Heron & Reason, 1997). Considering its focus on interactions and processes, constructivist grounded theory, we reckon,
seems most capable of accommodating Deleuzian theorizing, which centers on constant modes of propagation.
Finally, we wonder primarily, how to motivate and sensitize social science researchers to get close to this world, if they
keep a distance between themselves and the world they live in? This need for a deeper engagement with the world we study
is reflected in anthropologist David Howes’s (2008) concern with the gap between the real world and ‘‘objective” research
practices. Howes (2008, n.p.) asks: ‘‘why universalize the ‘scientific’ norms of the laboratory when the laboratory is not the
context in which most people experience the world?” Keeping close contact with the subjects we study is, therefore, not only
necessary to understand the world in which we live, but it also provides greater opportunities for researchers to convey their
ideas to various audiences. Grounded theory texts, when written in a non-positivistic style, may be also read by, and inspire,
practitioners and community members who, in turn, may take actions for a sustainable future. As Caton (2012, p. 1916) puts
it, ‘‘we don’t need to have any secure foundations for truth in order to wreak a lot of havoc, or alternatively, to create a lot of
happiness and goodwill on planet earth”. Hence we concur with Hollinshead (2006, p. 53), who argues that constructivist
approaches, which do not search for truth, can ‘‘more readily become a positive force in [. . .] enabling more relevant human
futures”.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Kellee Caton and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, which helped us
improve our manuscript.
References
Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructivism? Grounded Theory Review. An International Journal, 11(1), 39–46.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Berdychevsky, L., Gibson, H., & Poria, Y. (2013). Women’s sexual behavior in tourism: Loosening the bridle. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 65–85.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Botterill, D. (2014). Constructivism – A critical realist reply. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 292–298.
Bryant, A. (2003). A constructive/ist response to Glaser. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(1).
Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung, 10(3).
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction: Grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
grounded theory (pp. 1–28). London: Sage.
Cadman, L. (2009). Nonrepresentational theory/nonrepresentational geographies. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human
geography. London: Elsevier.
Caton, K. (2012). Taking the moral turn in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 1906–2012.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory, a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008a). Constructionism and the grounded theory. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2008b). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Niber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The 4th Sage handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 359–380). Los Angeles: Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Bryant, A. (2016). Constructing grounded theory analyses. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (4th edition, pp. 347–362). London: Sage.
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
Connell, J., & Lowe, A. (1997). Generating grounded theory from qualitative data: The application of inductive methods in tourism and hospitality
management research. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 165–173.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, P. (2006). Social valuing for Ogasawara as a place and space among ethnic host. Tourism Management, 27(3), 505–516.
Daengbuppha, J., Hemmington, N., & Wilkes, K. (2006). Using grounded theory to model visitor experiences at heritage sites: Methodological and practical
issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(4), 367–388.
Dann, G. M., Nash, D., & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 1–28.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable process. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008–1030.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2: Mille plateaux. Paris: Les Editions de Minuits.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? New York: Colombia University Press.
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.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and
interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 1–43). London: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011) (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dodd, T., & Beverland, M. (2001). Winery tourism life-cycle development: A proposed model. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(2), 11–21.
Filieri, R. (2016). What makes an online customer review trustworthy? Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 46–64.
Gao, B. W., Zhang, H., & L’espoir Decosta, P. (2012). Phantasmal destination: A post-modernist perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 197–220.
Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering grounded theory. London: Sage.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence v forcing. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3).
Glaser, B. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 97–113). London: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(1),
50–57.
Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working Paper Series June 1999, University of
Wolverhampton.
Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions.
European Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 835–853.
Goulding, C., & Shankar, A. (2011). Club culture, neotribalism and ritualised behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1435–1453.
Green, B. C., & Chalip, L. (1998). Sport tourism as the celebration of subculture. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 275–291.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hardy, A. (2005). Using grounded theory to explore stakeholder perceptions of tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 3(2), 108–133.
Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participative inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294.
Heung, V. C. S., Kucukusta, D., & Song, H. (2011). Medical tourism development in Hong Kong: An assessment of the barriers. Tourism Management, 32,
995–1005.
Ho, C. I., Lin, M. H., & Chen, H. M. (2012). Web users’ behavioural patterns of tourism information search: From online to offline. Tourism Management, 33,
1468–1482.
Hollinshead, K. (2004). A primer in ontological craft: the creative capture of people and place through qualitative research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson
(Eds.) Qualitative Research in Tourism. Ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies (pp. 63–82). London: Routledge.
Hollinshead, K. (2006). The shift to constructivism in social inquiry: Some pointers for tourism studies. Tourism Recreation Research, 31(2), 43–58.
Holt, N. L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2010). Improving grounded theory research in sport and exercise psychology: Further reflections as a response to Mike Weed.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 405–413.
Holton, J. H. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 265–289). London:
Sage.
Hottola, P. (2004). Cultural confusion: Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 447–466.
Howes, D. (2008). Multi-sensory marketing in cross-cultural perspective (part 2): Making sense of the senses. Retrieved May 28, 2015, from Perceptnet Web
site: http://www.percepnet.com/cien04_08_ang.htm.
Hunter-Jones, P. (2005). Cancer and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 70–92.
Hsu, C. H. C., Cai, L. A., & Wong, K. K. F. (2007). A model of senior tourism motivations – Anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28(5),
1262–1273.
Hyde, K. F., & Olesen, K. (2011). Packing for touristic performances. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 900–919.
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
Jennings, G., & Junek, O. (2007). Grounded theory: Innovative methodology or a critical turning from hegemonic methodological praxis in tourism studies. In
I. Ateljevic, A. Pritchard, & N. Morgan (Eds.), The critical turn in tourism studies, innovative research methodologies (pp. 197–210). Oxford: Elsevier.
Jiang, B., & Tribe, J. (2009). ’Tourism jobs – Short lived professions’: Student attitudes towards tourism careers in China. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &
Tourism Education, 8(1), 4–19.
Johnston, C. S. (2014). Towards a theory of sustainability, sustainable development and sustainable tourism: Beijing’s hutong neighbourhoods and
sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(2), 195–213.
Kelle, U. (2005). ‘‘Emergence” vs. ‘‘Forcing” of Empirical Data? A crucial problem of ‘‘Grounded Theory” reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/
Forum: Qualitative, Social Research, 6(2).
Kensbock, S., & Jennings, G. (2011). Pursuing: A grounded theory of tourism entrepreneurs’ understanding and praxis of sustainable tourism. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 489–504.
Kensbock, S., Jennings, G., Baily, J., & Patiar, A. (2016). Performing: Hotel room attendants’ employment experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 56, 112–127.
Kianicka, S., Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., & Müller-Böker, U. (2006). Locals’ and tourists’ sense of place. Mountain Research and Development, 26(1), 55–63.
Kim, H., & Jamal, T. B. (2007). Tourist quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 181–201.
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2009). Building a model of local food consumption on trips and holidays: A grounded theory approach. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 28, 423–431.
Lee, S., & Bai, B. (2016). Influence of popular culture on special interest tourists’ destination image. Tourism Management, 52, 161–169.
Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
grounded theory (pp. 245–264). London: Sage.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism Management, 28(3), 876–885.
Liggett, D., McIntosh, A., Thompson, A., & Storey, B. (2011). From frozen continent to tourism hotspot? Five decades of Antarctic tourism development and
management, and a glimpse into the future. Tourism Management, 32, 357–366.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic, controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th edition, pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
X. Matteucci, J. Gnoth / Annals of Tourism Research 65 (2017) 49–59
59
Lumsdon, L. M., & McGrath, P. (2011). Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3),
265–279.
Lynch, P. A. (2005). Sociological impressionism in a hospitality context. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 527–548.
Martin, D., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Grounded theory of international tourism behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(4), 245–258.
Matteucci, X. (2014). Forms of body usage in tourists’ experiences of flamenco. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 29–43.
Matteucci, X., & Filep, S. (2017). Eudaimonic tourist experiences: The case of flamenco. Leisure Studies, 36(1), 39–52.
Mazzei, L. A., & McCoy, K. (2010). Thinking with Deleuze in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 503–509.
Mehmetoglu, M., & Altinay, L. (2006). Examination of grounded theory analysis with an application to hospitality research. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 25(1), 12–33.
Minnaert, L. (2014). Social tourism participation: The role of tourism inexperience and uncertainty. Tourism Management, 40, 282–289.
Mostafanezhad, M. (2013). The politics of aesthetics in volunteer tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 150–169.
Nimrod, G. (2008). Retirement and tourism: Themes in retirees’ narratives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 859–878.
Nyaupane, G. P., & Poudel, S. (2012). Application of appreciative inquiry in tourism research in rural communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 978–987.
Papathanassis, A., & Knolle, F. (2011). Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday reviews: A grounded theory approach. Tourism Management,
32(2), 215–224.
Pavelka, J., & Draper, D. (2015). Leisure negotiation within amenity migration. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 128–142.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things (edited by Kenneth Laine Ketner). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pernecky, T. (2012). Constructionism: Critical pointers for tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1116–1137.
Pernecky, T. (2014). Realist and constructionist shades of grey. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 292–298.
Platenkamp, V., & Botterill, D. (2013). Critical realism, rationality and tourism knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 110–129.
Ponting, J., & McDonald, M. G. (2013). Performance, agency and change in surfing tourist space. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 415–434.
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N., & Ateljevic, I. (2011). Hopeful tourism: A new transformative perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 941–963.
Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory
(pp. 214–228). London: Sage.
Riegler, A. (2005). Editorial: The constructivist challenge. Constructivist Foundations, 1(1), 1–8.
Riley, R. (1995). Prestige-worthy tourism behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 630–649.
Ruiz-Ballesteros, E. (2011). Social-ecological resilience and community-based tourism: An approach from Agua Blanca, Ecuador. Tourism Management, 32,
655–666.
St-Pierre, E. A., Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2016). New empiricisms and new materialisms: Conditions for new inquiry. Cultural Studies – Critical
Methodologies, 16(2), 99–110.
Stevensen, N., Airey, D. W., & Miller, G. A. (2008). Tourism policy making: The policy makers’ perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732–750.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Stumpf, T. S., & Swanger, N. (2015). Tourism involvement-conformance theory: A grounded theory concerning the latent consequences of sustainable
tourism policy shifts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 618–637.
Stumpf, T. S., Sandstrom, J., & Swanger, N. (2016). Bridging the gap: Grounded theory method, theory, development and sustainable tourism research.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(12), 1691–1708.
Tan, S. K., Kung, S. F., & Luh, D. B. (2013). A model of ‘creative experience’ in creative tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 153–174.
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Re-inventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32
(6), 767–795.
Tribe, J., Xiao, H., & Chambers, D. (2012). The reflexive journal: Inside the black box. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 7–35.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367–1386.
von Glasersfeld, E. (2001). The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science, 6(1), 31–43.
Williams, J. (2011). Objects in manifold times: Deleuze and the speculative philosophy of objects as processes. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and
Social Philosophy, 7(1), 62–75.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. London: Sage.
Wilson, E., & Hollinshead, K. (2015). Qualitative tourism research: Opportunities in the emergent soft sciences. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 30–47.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodological mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing, 45(2), 122–124.
Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded theory of leisure travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 7–39.
Xavier Matteucci teaches at various institutions in Austria and abroad. His research interests are in the areas of qualitative research methods, tourism
experiences, cultural tourism and quality of life.
Juergen Gnoth teaches at Otago University, New Zealand. He teaches consumer behaviour and specialises in tourism experiences, service marketing, place
branding and the theory of science.