Grounded Theory in Practice
Abstract
Grounded theory (GT) is becoming more popular as a research methodology in
several fields including HRD. Although is still considered a niche methodology we
suggest that more qualitative research is needed across all areas. A gap was found
relating to studies which explain how to use GT in practice. Thus, this paper intends
to be an important contribution especially to research students and academics
interested in employing GT in their projects. This paper presents two doctoral
research studies in which GT was employed successfully. The first study used GT to
explore the relationship development, through direct marketing (DM), between
customers and training services companies. Thirty semi-structured interviews were
conducted with training / HRD directors. The second study employed GT in an indepth one case study scenario, analysing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
practices in a UK utility business. One of its aims was to explore employees’
perceptions as part of an internal feedback system. It is relevant to emphasise that
both pieces of research were intrinsically different. However, there was an essential
aspect in common. The key aim in these studies was to explore what was “behind
the surface”, to understand the insights that interviewees gave to each theme in
particular. By comparing and contrasting two cases we illustrate how GT can be used
in different academic disciplines and identify the challenges that this approach brings.
Keywords: Grounded Theory, Qualitative Research, Interviews, Case Study,
Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility
Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência
e a Tecnologia, Portugal (PEst-OE/EME/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the
research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Engenharia
e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Introduction
It seems that there is an increasing need of employing a qualitative methodology. It is
obviously important to gain quantitative insights, but it is crucial to complement this
“quantification” with the understanding of how and why certain phenomena actually
occur. Grounded theory (GT) is becoming more popular in academia, although still
considered to be a niche methodology. This paper discusses two pieces of research,
both substantive studies for two doctoral theses and both of which successfully
employed grounded theory. These studies suggest that a grounded theory
methodology can advance innovative and novel research.
This paper is structured as follows. First, a literature review is presented on GT
research. Then, the two research studies, which employed GT, are discussed. The
paper ends with some conclusions and implications of using GT.
Literature Review
GT was chosen for both research studies that are discussed in this paper, since the
aim was to gather interviewees’ perceptions, thoughts and feelings about each topic.
1
In order not to be restricted to testing any kind of framework or theory and to keep an
open mind, GT was used so that the concepts emerged from the data ‘naturally’.
The next sections will provide a brief introduction into GT and how it is relevant to
research nowadays.
The Introduction and History of Grounded Theory
GT was initially developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in order to address “the
discovery of theory from data” (p. 1). The main aim of GT is to establish an approach
for theory to emerge from the data of social research. It was developed during a time,
when qualitative data analysis was rather unpopular (Charmaz, 2006, p. 4) and also
under scrutiny for a lack of scientific rigour (Turner, 1981, p. 225, 1983, p. 333;
Goulding, 2005, p. 295). Hence, Glaser and Strauss had particularly qualitative
research in mind for which they wanted to provide a “systemization of the collection,
coding and analysis” in order to generate theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 18).
The defining components of GT are as follows (Charmaz, 2006, p. 5):
 Simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis

Constructing analytic codes and categories from data, not from preconceived
logically deduced hypotheses

Using the constant comparative method, which involves making comparisons
during each stage of the analysis

Advancing theory development during each step of data collection and
analysis

Memo-writing to elaborate categories, specify their properties, define
relationships between categories, and identify gaps

Sampling aimed
representativeness

Conducting the literature review after developing an independent analysis
toward
theory
construction,
not
for
population
After their joint publication Glaser and Strauss went on to continue developing GT in
different ways that led to a methodological split (Melia, 1996; Charmaz, 2000;
Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Goulding, 2005; Kelle, 2005; Charmaz,
2006; Mills et al., 2006). Whereas Glaser was an advocate of conducting GT in its
purest form by letting the theory emerge from the data and returning it for verification,
Strauss was in favour of a more structured conceptualisation by using a coding
paradigm to guide the analysis. This debate that was subsequently coined
“emergence vs. forcing debate”, led to two main streams of GT (Glaser, 1992;
Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Kelle, 2005).
Glassian grounded theory
Glaser believed in the purely inductive nature of GT to “absorb the data as data” with
preconceptions of forcing results (Glaser, 1992, p. 11). This version of GT is defined
as:
2
“a general methodology of analysis linked with data collection that uses a
systematically applied set of methods to generate an inductive theory about a
substantive area” (Glaser, 1992, p. 16)
It can therefore be applied both to quantitative and qualitative data. It is important to
note that GT is “not finding, but rather an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses”
that in practice are often considered as findings (Glaser, 1998, p. 3). Moreover,
Glaser (1998) states that although it is in the nature of every researcher to force
categories from the data. It is possible to overcome it if the researcher
“… suspends what he knows, keeps studying the data, conceptualizes and
constantly compares. He gets skilled at this. It is a ‘degree of’ achievement”. (p.
81)
This strand of GT employs mainly constant comparison, in which the new data is
compared with existing data to find similarities and differences. These insights are
then used to develop and refine the categories used in the analytical process (Glaser
and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992; Charmaz, 2006).
When Strauss started to develop his own version of GT, Glaser was very critical of
the new direction as, from his point of view, it contradicts the basic notion of GT for
the theory to emerge from the data and not to be forced into categories (Glaser,
1992; Kelle, 2005).
Straussian grounded theory
Strauss and Corbin followed a different path in carrying the development of GT
forward (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The main idea of Strauss and Corbin is that
while they acknowledge that the researcher “allows the theory to emerge from the
data”, it is still necessary to provide “some standardization and rigor to the process”
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 13). This is done by a formalisation of the data analysis
and theory building process, which they structure into coding (open coding, axial
coding, and selective coding), theoretical sampling, and memo writing (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998; Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Charmaz, 2006).
Despite the vehement criticism of Strauss and Corbin’s approach by Glaser (1992), it
is the more prominent and used stance of grounded analysis (Bryman and Bell,
2003, p. 428).
Grounded theory as inductive research
As GT is an inductivist research, it requires that the scientist initiates the research
without any preconceived ideas and with an open mind. However, this does not
mean that it is necessary to have no a priori knowledge whatsoever, which in fact is
hardly possible (Heath and Cowley, 2004; Goulding, 2005, p. 296; Kelle, 2005).
Instead, it is necessary to carefully prepare the research, while maintaining the
openness to let the theory emerge from the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) confirm
this by stating that it is unrealistic that the researcher “approach[es] reality as tabula
rasa” and that it is vital to “have a perspective that will help him see relevant data and
abstract significant categories” (p. 3).
3
Moreover, the use of existing literature and whether to conduct a literature review
before the data collection and analysis is debatable (e.g. McCann and Clarke, 2003;
Charmaz, 2006). Glaser (1992) claims that any prior literature review puts constraints
the generation of categories and that it should only be carried out as part of the data
analysis. On the other hand, Strauss and Corbin (1998) are of the opinion that an
initial literature review enhances the theoretical sensitivity, although the main review
is conducted at a later stage in order to support the emerging themes. Saunders et
al. (2000) also stress that grounded theorists do not start research without a
competent level of knowledge in the area and that a clearly defined purpose is
important when initiating the research. This needs to be flexible in order to be altered
if the data requires doing so. Interestingly, apart from building a sound basis, a good
preparation, for instance a good literature review, creates much more distance than it
sacrifices for the openness required by GT (McCraken, 1991). The main challenge
here is therefore balancing “between drawing on prior knowledge while keeping a
fresh and open mind to new concepts as they emerge from the data” (Goulding,
2005, p. 296).
Coding in grounded theory
The way in which data is coded in a grounded analysis depends heavily on which
version of it is being used (see Table 1). In the original work of Glaser and Strauss
(1967) only coding for categories as part of the constant comparison is being used.
Since then Glaser has vehemently opposed any coding procedure that goes beyond
substantive codes and theoretical codes. Substantive codes are developed during
initial/open coding and theoretical coding then helps to develop relationships
between substantive codes and to put together the fractured data, for which Glaser
has provided 18 overlapping code families (Boychuk Duchscher and Morgan, 2004;
Kelle, 2005).
Strauss and Corbin (1998) add another level to the coding process. Axial coding is
used to relate categories to their subcategories to “form more precise and complete
explanations about phenomena” (p. 124). It also reassembles the data that was
fractured during the process of the initial coding, providing some coherence to the
emerging analysis (Charmaz, 2006, p. 60). This provides a more general paradigm
model rather than Glaser’s approach to use a list of sociological terms to identify and
relate categories. The axial coding is then followed by selective coding, where the
core categories are chosen and then related to other categories.
4
Strauss
(1998)
and
Corbin Glaser (1992), Glaser (1998)
Initial coding
Open coding
Use of analytical technique
Substantive coding
Data dependent
Intermediate
phase
Axial coding
Reduction and clustering
of categories
Continuous with previous phase
Comparisons, with focus on
data, become more abstract,
categories refitted, emerging
frameworks
Final
development
Selective coding
Detailed development of
categories, selection of
core, integration of
categories
Theoretical
Refitting and refinement of
categories which integrate
around emerging core
Theory
Detailed and dense
process fully described
Parsimony, scope and
modifiability
Table 1: Comparisons of Grounded Theory Coding and Data Analysis
Source: Heath and Cowley (2004, p. 146)
Criticism to grounded theory
Naturally, there are some criticisms and pitfalls related to the use of GT that have to
be kept in mind.
First of all, GT is considered to be more suitable for qualitative data obtained from
semi-structured or unstructured interviews, observation, case study material or other
documentary sources rather than for instance looking at larger scale aspects of
social phenomena, like demographic trends (Turner, 1981, p. 227). Furthermore, the
quality of the research outcome is more dependent on the quality of data and
understanding that is developed during the research project, more than for most
other modes of social inquiry.
Seldén (2005) points out a number of issues that a researcher, who is applying GT,
needs to be aware of: technically complicated coding procedures, contextual
sensitivity, a priori knowledge and preparation, and level of sophistication of the
theories (p. 126). Most of these criticisms lie within the theoretical sensitivity and the
view that the concepts are not emerging from the data, but that they depend on the
knowledge, experience, and skills of the researcher and also the knowledge that had
been acquired beforehand and the preparation of the research. Therefore the
position of the researcher in creating knowledge has been largely neglected in the
original GT writings. In addition to this, the research position and the resulting
empiricist bias and also the use of qualitative software packages can lead to a
disconnection from the context and fragmentation of the data when incidents are
5
coded (Bryman and Bell, 2003, p. 434; Seldén, 2005, p. 126). A widely expressed
ramification of the coding process according to Strauss and Corbin (1998) is that it is
very technical and that the coding becomes a goal in itself whilst threatening the
creative process that is at the heart of GT.
While all of the above mentioned objections are valid, they need to be taken into
consideration, but do not present a major obstacle in applying GT (Turner, 1981). In
fact, GT proved to be an appropriate approach to this research considering the
emerging results, which will be presented in the next section.
Data Analysis Process
GT in all its details can be a very complex methodology. However, Glaser (1998)
calls for researchers to stop talking about it and just get on with doing it, especially
because “well done grounded theory justifies itself“ (p. 19). Heath and Cowley (2004)
suggest to less worry about “doing it right” and just “adhere to the principle of
constant comparison, theoretical sampling and emergence” and then to identify the
most suitable stance of GT (p. 149). Moreover, they stress that qualitative analysis is
a cognitive process and therefore subject to each researcher’s individual style and
reflects a personal point of view and by no means a grand theory. This also applies
to choosing the most appropriate version of GT.
Grounded Theory in Practice
Two research projects were carried out, the first finished in 2009, the second in 2010.
The way in which GT was applied in each of them will be explained next.
Study 1
The main aim of this study was to explore if and how direct marketing (DM) can
contribute to the development of relationships with customers in the training sector
based in Portugal. Significantly, this study focused only on the customers’
perspective and experiences. Thus, this research explored qualitatively customers’
perceptions on the link between DM and relationship marketing (RM), in a businessto-business context, using a GT approach. To the best of our knowledge, no other
empirical study was found examining this particular combination.
The data comprised thirty semi-structured qualitative interviews. The interviews
followed a checklist guide, which was tested in three pilot interviews and then refined
for the major data collection. The argument of Clough and Nutbrown (2002) was
followed in the sense that the “schedule guided the interview but did not dictate the
path” (p.105). The research sample was purposive, consisting of training customers,
specifically 24 training directors and six training participants from 30 different
companies in Portugal. The interviews were conducted in Portuguese, transcribed,
and then translated into English.
Since this study aimed to explore interpretations and meanings of an underresearched topic, specifically how training customers perceive the process on the
relationship development through DM, GT was chosen (Stroh, 2000). Furthermore,
GT is considered especially adequate and efficient to analyse qualitative data. Thus,
the nature of this study seemed to require this type of analysis, “grounded in
customers’ data” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The seven stages grounded approach
of Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (2002) was employed in the data analysis. This
rigorous grounded analysis approach “fit” closely with the GT “type” of Strauss and
6
Corbin (1998) since several procedures were followed. Memos, diagrams and tables
based on Miles and Huberman (1994) were used, complementing the analysis
process. Moreover, GT allowed changes across interviews, some questions being
added in certain cases when it was necessary to follow some “new” paths/ideas. The
way in which these seven stages were followed in practice was based on Elliott
(1998) and is explained in Table 2.
Familiarisation
with data
In this first stage transcripts were read while listening to the
tapes. The aim was to check carefully if transcripts were
correctly made by the company in charge of them. Some word
errors were corrected and some spaces filled in. Total
confidence on the interview transcripts was achieved.
Reflection on the This stage was done at same time as the first. While reading
interview data
the transcripts and listening to the tapes, some notes in a memo
were taken, namely about impressions on interviewees’
meanings, voice tones, limitations and other general
observations.
Conceptualisation Many concepts appeared at this stage. All the interviews
transcripts were codified, 46 codes being developed. Some
pieces of data were in more than one code. The most
interesting ideas were underlined and key quotes highlighted in
green.
Cataloguing
At this stage data were grouped by code in the computer (word
concepts
programme). This enabled a close familiarisation with the data.
Re-Coding
Data were re-read and re-grouped by code, cutting some of
them and making some changes in codification of some pieces
of data. At this stage codes were reduced to 28. In this phase,
tables based on Miles and Huberman (1994) were constructed,
with all the codes in the columns, and the interviewees’
summarised answers in the rows. GT includes “the ‘constant
comparison’ method” (Goulding, 2005, p. 297), which was
followed at this stage, comparing the answers of each
interviewee by code.
Linking
Several patterns and relationships were found at this stage. The
tables done in the previous stage, “reducing data” based on
Miles and Huberman (1994) proved to be particularly useful in
order to compare interviewees’ answers and to have a complete
picture of the whole data.
Re-Evaluation
Transcripts were read for the last time. Some points of the
analysis were improved, some details and quotes being added.
At this final stage, four main areas emerged distributed by 10
themes (representing four parts in the two findings chapters). A
diagram with these main findings was designed, which was then
followed in the data analysis chapters. This diagram was a
crucial element in the GT process, being extremely helpful in
facilitating writing the findings.
Table 2: Data analysis of study 1
7
Complementary analysis tools were used, proving to be really helpful in facilitating
and complementing the Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) seven stages grounded analysis
approach. More specifically, the list of codes, the tables based in Miles and
Huberman (1994), the memos (Goulding, 2002) and the diagram (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998) were used. The key findings that emerged from the GT research were
that DM appeared to have two key roles: (1) to establish a relationship between
customers and training companies, this being dependent on the relevance of DM to
the recipients’ jobs/activities combined with the credibility of the DM source; and (2)
DM has a conditional role in the relationship development between customers and
training companies. DM only has a role in developing relationships if it is relevant to
customers’ training needs combined with positive perceptions of the past training
performance in customers’ minds. These perceptions are linked to quality and
satisfaction, customers making an immediate association between the DM source
and past training performance. Moreover, other findings emerged, namely two
different customer segments, one more relational, the other more transactionaloriented, the key difference between them being the like/dislike for personal contacts.
Finally, completely different customer perceptions regarding DM received either in a
BTB or in a BTC context strongly and unexpectedly emerged. These findings
demonstrate clearly the immense advantages of employing GT, mainly that of
allowing the researcher to go further than envisaged, contributing significantly to the
DM and RM literature and practices.
Study 2
The second study investigated the current state and past development of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) practices in a UK utility company. There are calls to look
at CSR from a different perspective (Gladwin et al., 1995; Bebbington, 2007) and
Gladwin et al. (1995) suggested that the very nature of CSR forces management
research toward interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary modes of inquiry.
The study consisted of a two-phased single case study approach. The first phase
was an in-depth case study in a business organisation with recognised CSR
credentials. This organisation was a UK water business, which operates in an
industry characterised both by a high level of regulation and a significant ecological
relevance. This phase consisted predominantly of semi-structured interviews, yet
also considered some documentary evidence. For the second research phase
stakeholders of the case study company were interviewed in order to gain a more
holistic perspective of the dynamics of implementing CSR. In order to provide a
significant contribution to the existing research a grounded research approach was
chosen. This provided the possibility of taking a broader perspective than previous
research, which employed existing theoretical frameworks like stakeholder theory or
legitimacy theory, which have frequently been used in researching CSR.
When identifying the most suitable approach to GT for this study, Strauss and Corbin
(1998) seemed more suitable and appealing because of the more structured and
detailed procedures that provide substantially more guidance than when following
Glaser and Strauss (1967). In addition, it is suggested that the version of GT should
be selected, which fits the researcher’s paradigm of inquiry (Goulding, 1999). Strauss
and Corbin (1998) assume an “objective external reality”, but also acknowledge
respondents’ “views of reality” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 510), which is congruent with the
stance taken in this study.
8
After beginning to conduct the research using GT according to Strauss and Corbin
(1998) it became apparent that this approach can be highly complex due to the
systematic coding techniques, which Goulding (1999) confirms. Bearing in mind the
previous comments on GT being a subjective cognitive process, I started to modify
existing approaches and adapted them to how I thought it would be most appropriate
for my research. Furthermore, Glaser and Strauss (1967) explicitly state that they do
not want to coerce the theory’s acceptance by the reader and call for readers to use
the proposed GT strategies in a flexible way. This is confirmed by Charmaz (2006)
and Turner (1981), who both suggest that GT is not a methodology that should be
followed dogmatically, but instead just outlines a proposition for a procedure. Hence,
the applied procedures and strategies used in this thesis draw on a number of
different influences (Turner, 1981; Charmaz, 2000; Bryman and Bell, 2003; Heath
and Cowley, 2004; Jones et al., 2005; Charmaz, 2006) bearing in mind that they all
have the fundamental GT strategies as described in one way or another by Glaser
and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1998).
The GT research process was a cyclical one and included the stages as illustrated in
Table 3.
Preparation
The first stage included the development of the research
questions. The main role of the research questions is to direct the
research and set the boundaries. Strauss and Corbin (1998)
pointed out that for doing that, the research questions need to be
formulated in a way that they are setting the frame in order to
develop a theory and to investigate a phenomenon in depth. In
directing the research, the research questions are also constantly
guiding the literature review that is necessary to build a basis of
knowledge in the substantive area and also contribute to the
theoretical sensitivity, i.e. the researcher’s ability to generate the
theory and see relevant data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 46;
Kelle, 2005).
Data collection The first set of codes was based on the literature review and
and
initial consciously kept as generic as possible in order to avoid
preconceptions limiting analysis. In the initial coding (or open
coding
coding according to Strauss and Corbin) the data is used to
identify concepts and their properties and dimensions are
discovered (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Data collection In this stage the data collection and analysis continued
and coding
simultaneously. After conducting the interviews, they were
subsequently transcribed and coded line by line as described for
the initial coding.
As the number of interviewees increased, the codes were
constantly refined. An essential tool in applying GT is constant
comparison. Incidents and statements were compared within the
same interview and also with different interviews, which then
allowed identification, linking, and focusing on the important
aspects in order to extract them into the theory generation, but
also to use these for the generation of new codes. What followed
was the focused/selective coding, in which the codes were
9
identified that produced the most amount of data but also the
most relevant data. This guided the structure of the analysis and
made the work more focused and goal directed. The codes that
produced data to a lesser extent were by no means discarded,
hoping that they might at some point produce interesting and
relevant insights as well.
The end of the data collection and analysis cycle is determined
by the theoretical saturation of the codes (Glaser and Strauss,
1967, p. 111). This means if after analysing different interviews,
codes become saturated, meaning that collecting more data does
not provide new theoretical insights (Charmaz, 2006, p. 113), it is
unnecessary to continue.
Writing up and At the end, the resulting data needed to be transformed into an
presentation
analytical text, which proved challenging, as the analysis resulted
in a very large document.
Table 3: Data analysis of study 2
The key findings that emerged from the GT research were related to the
conceptualisation of corporate social responsibility. A number of different theories
and perspectives have been applied to the implementation of CSR practices in
organisations. For instance, institutional theory, legitimacy theory, organisational
theory and stakeholder theory are popular among researchers. Moreover, the
different perspectives that were used to analyse CSR include, among others,
accounting, marketing, human resources. While all these approaches have led to
valuable insights in their own right, they have also obstructed finding new
approaches to unsolved problems. As pointed out previously, this is mirrored by
academics calling for new perspectives. Specifically, this research identified a
systemic complexity and that it is necessary to take a more comprehensive research
approach to reflect such complexity. The internal organisational dynamics and the
external stakeholder pressures and interactions were important in shaping the CSR
implementations. Particularly in terms of the organisational value system, which is
determined by the societal perception, the complex interdependencies are evident.
Conclusions and Implications
The first study used the Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) grounded analysis approach.
The key findings that emerged from this research were that DM appeared to have
two key roles: (1) to establish a relationship between customers and training
companies, this being dependent on the relevance of DM to the recipients’
jobs/activities combined with the credibility of the DM source; and (2) DM has a
conditional role in the relationship development between customers and training
companies. DM only has a role in developing relationships if it is relevant to
customers’ training needs combined with positive perceptions of the past training
performance in customers’ minds. These perceptions are linked to quality and
satisfaction, customers making an immediate association between the DM source
and past training performance.
The second study employed GT approaches according to Glaser and Strauss (1967),
Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Charmaz (2006). The key findings were related to the
10
conceptualisation of CSR within a business organisation. A number of different
theories and perspectives have been applied to the implementation of CSR practices
in organisations, such as institutional theory, legitimacy theory, organisational theory
and stakeholder theory. Moreover, the different perspectives that were used to
analyse CSR include, among others, accounting, marketing, and human resources.
While all these approaches have led to valuable insights in their own right, they have
also obstructed finding new approaches and lenses to unsolved problems. This is
mirrored by academics calling for new perspectives to solve the social and
environmental crisis. Specifically, this research identified a systemic complexity and
highlighted that it is necessary to take a more comprehensive research approach to
reflect such complexity. This means that in practice a joint effort by all departments is
necessary. Particularly in terms of the organisational value system, which is
determined by the societal perception, the complex interdependencies are evident.
Both studies discussed in this paper are very different in topic, scope and the GT
implementation process. Despite the different research designs the advantages of a
GT research approach strongly emerged. In both cases, the use of GT allowed
conducting innovative research, with new perspectives and approaches, leading to
novel, interesting and rich research findings. Thus, we suggest that for both research
topics, one being novel (as in the first study) and the other established (as in the
second), GT can equally result in new findings and indicate further directions for
future research.
In terms of the execution of GT, the studies have shown that while there is some
level of complexity in the analysis process, the advantage of GT is that it can be
adapted to suit the individual needs and preferences of the researcher. This is a
powerful aspect of GT in aiding state of the art research.
References
Bebbington, J. (2007). Changing organizational attitudes and culture through
sustainability accounting. In: Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and O'Dwyer, B.
(Eds.) Sustainability accounting and accountability. London: Routledge.
Boychuk Duchscher, J. E. and Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: reflections on
the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 605-612.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In:
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.,
Sage Publications.
Clough, P. and Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student’s guide to methodology, London,
Sage.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002). Management research - An
Introduction, London, Sage.
Elliott, D. (1998). Organisational learning from crisis: an examination of the UK
football industry 1946-97. Doctoral Thesis, UK: University of Durham Business
School.
11
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. and Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting Paradigms for
Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and
Research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874-907.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies
for qualitative research, Hawthorne, N.Y, Aldine de Gruyter.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis : emergence vs forcing, Mill
Valley, Ca, Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory : issues and discussions, Mill Valley,
CA, Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. (1999). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological
ambiguities. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 859-873.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: a practical guide for management, business
and market researchers, London, Sage.
Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A
comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research.
European Journal of Marketing, 39, 294-308.
Heath, H. and Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: a
comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies,
41, 141-150.
Jones, M. L., Kriflik, G. and Zanko, M. (2005). Grounded Theory: A theoretical and
practical application in the Australian Film Industry. Faculty of Commerce Papers. University of Wollongong.
Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of
"Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6.
McCann, T. V. and Clarke, E. (2003). Grounded theory in nursing research: Part 2 Critique. Nurse Researcher, 11, 19-28.
McCraken, G. (1991). The Long Interview. Sage University Paper Series on
Qualitative Research Methods, 13, 9-87.
Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 368-378.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London, Sage.
Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist
Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 1-10.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000). Research methods for business
students, Harlow, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Seldén, L. (2005). On Grounded Theory - with some malice. Journal of
Documentation, 61, 114-129.
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research : techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, Calif. ;
London, Sage Publications.
Stroh, M. (2000). Qualitative interviewing. In: Burton, D. (Ed.) Research training for
social scientists: A handbook for postgraduate researchers. London: Sage.
Turner, B. A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: One way of
organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded
theory. Quality and Quantity, 15, 225-247.
Turner, B. A. (1983). The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of
Organizational Behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20, 333-348.
12