Research as Discovery: Practical Experiences of Employing Grounded Theory

Research as Discovery: Practical Experiences of Employing Grounded Theory Abstract This paper is based on two different pieces of research, which employed grounded theory in different ways and in distinct areas of management research. The first used grounded theory to explore the link between direct marketing and relationship marketing. The second used grounded theory as part of an in-depth case study to inform the complex relationships of corporate social responsibility within a business organisation. Whilst both pieces of research were inherently different, they shared one important aspect. Both aimed to understand what was behind the surface of these key themes. Thus, this paper will contribute to the scarce research on how to apply grounded theory in practice. This is an important contribution especially to research students and academics. Keywords: Grounded Theory, Qualitative Research, Inductive Research, Interviews, Case Study, Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility

Introduction Grounded theory 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, qualitative research. This paper is structured as follows. First, a brief literature review is presented on grounded theory research. Then, the two research studies, which employed grounded theory, are discussed. The paper ends with implications of using grounded theory. Grounded Theory Grounded theory (GT) was initially developed by Glaser & 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 & Strauss had qualitative research in mind for which they wanted to provide a systemization of the collection, coding and analysis in order to generate theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 18). After their joint publication Glaser & Strauss went on to continue developing GT in different ways that led to a methodological split (Melia, 1996; Charmaz, 2000; Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Goulding, 2005; Kelle, 2005; Charmaz, 2006; Mills et al., 2006). Whereas Glaser was an advocate of conducting GT in the purest form by letting the theory emerge from the data and returning to 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 named emergence vs. forcing debate, led to the two main stances of GT (Glaser, 1992; Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Kelle, 2005). 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 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). 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 & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992; Charmaz, 2006). Strauss & Corbin (1998) followed a different path in carrying the development of GT forward. The main idea of Strauss & Corbin is that while they acknowledged that the researcher allows the theory to emerge from the data, it is still necessary to provide some standardization and rigour to the process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 13). This is done by a formalisation of the data analysis and theory building process, which they structured into coding (open coding, axial coding, and selective coding), theoretical sampling, and memo writing (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Charmaz, 2006). Despite the vehement criticism of Strauss & Corbin s approach by Glaser (1992), it is the more prominent and used stance of grounded analysis (Bryman & Bell, 2003, p. 428). Naturally, there are also some generic criticisms and pitfalls related to the use of GT. First, it is considered to be more suitable for qualitative data rather than, for instance, looking at 1

larger scale aspects of social phenomena (Turner, 1981, p. 227). Second, 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) pointed 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. While all of the above mentioned objections are valid, and they need to be taken into consideration, they do not present a major obstacle in applying GT (Turner, 1981; Goulding, 2005). Grounded Theory in Practice Glaser & Strauss (1967) explicitly stated that they do not want to coerce the theory s acceptance and called for readers to use the proposed GT strategies in a flexible way. This is confirmed by Charmaz (2006) and Turner (1981), who both suggested that GT is not a methodology that should be followed dogmatically, but instead just outlines a proposition for a procedure. This is the reason for why a common GT approach may lead to different procedural implementations, noticeable in the following examples. 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 business-to-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 & 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 under-researched 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 & Strauss, 1967). The seven stages grounded approach of Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) was employed in the data analysis. This rigorous grounded analysis approach fit closely with the GT type of Strauss & Corbin (1998) since several procedures were followed. Memos, diagrams and tables based on Miles & Huberman (1994) were used, complementing the analysis process. Moreover, GT allowed changes across interviews, some questions being added in certain cases when it was 2

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 1. Familiarisation with data Reflection on the interview 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. This stage was done at same time as the first. While reading 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 concepts Re-Coding Linking Re-Evaluation Table 1: Data analysis of study 1. At this stage data were grouped by code in the computer (word programme). This enabled a close familiarisation with the data. 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 & 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. Several patterns and relationships were found at this stage. The tables done in the previous stage, reducing data based on Miles & Huberman (1994) proved to be particularly useful in order to compare interviewees answers and to have a complete picture of the whole data. 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. 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 & Huberman (1994), the memos (Goulding, 2002) and the diagram (Strauss & 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, 3

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 transactional-oriented, 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 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 indepth 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. The GT research process was a cyclical one and included the stages as illustrated in Table 2. Preparation Data collection and initial coding Data collection and coding 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 & 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 & Strauss, 1967, p. 46; Kelle, 2005). The first set of codes was based on the literature review and consciously kept as generic as possible in order to avoid preconceptions limiting analysis. In the initial coding (or open coding according to Strauss & Corbin) the data is used to identify concepts and their properties and dimensions are discovered (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In this stage the data collection and analysis continued 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. 4

Writing up and presentation Table 2: Data analysis of study 2. 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 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 & 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. At the end, the resulting data needed to be transformed into an analytical text, which proved challenging, as the analysis resulted in a very large document. 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 Both studies discussed in this paper are quite different in topic, scope and the GT implementation process. The first study looked at the perceptions and feelings of training customers, from different companies across Portugal, regarding the link between DM and RM. The second research employed GT in an in-depth one case study scenario, analysing CSR practices in a UK utility business. Despite the different research designs the advantages of a GT research approach strongly emerged. In both cases, the use of GT allowed the conduct of innovative research, with new perspectives and approaches, leading to novel, interesting and rich research findings. Thus, we suggest that for both research topics that are novel (as in the first study) and established (as in the second) GT can equally result in new findings and indicate further directions for future research. 5

References Bebbington, J. (2007). Changing organizational attitudes and culture through sustainability accounting. In: Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. & O'Dwyer, B. (Eds.) Sustainability accounting and accountability. London: Routledge. Boychuk Duchscher, J. E. & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 605-612. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: Denzin, N. K. & 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. & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student s guide to methodology, London, Sage. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & 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. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. & 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. & 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. 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. Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6. Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 368-378. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London, Sage. Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 1-10. Seldén, L. (2005). On Grounded Theory - with some malice. Journal of Documentation, 61, 114-129. Strauss, A. L. & 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. 6