Demo

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 129 logically. The entry-level is open coding. At this level, the researchers need to do a line-by-line analysis technique to scrutinize any underlying meanings within the research data and assign code names, which could either be verbatim or terms commonly used in the academic discipline. Results from this level are code names being arranged into associated categories. The second coding level is axial codes. At this level, the researcher identifies the relationships among categories. The third level is selective codes. The researcher will scrutinize the axial codes and then hypothesize relationships between the attributes of each axial code attempting to select a specific hypothesis relevant to the investigative propositions. Finally, the highest coding level, the theoretical coding, requires the researcher to verify the proposed hypothesis grounding into the data before ruling the emerging theory. The theory will guide further data collection to re-verify the theory. The researcher can rule out theoretical saturation if no new insights are found in the newly collected data. Or else, any new insights will order the researcher to revise the code from the entry-level code names and categories. Coding in grounded theory analysis is usually more complex than the basic picture illustrated in Figure 5.4. Researchers commonly developed a large number of codes, categories and deliver more interconnecting conceptions and theoretical patterns across axial codes, hence sophisticated selective codes and hypotheses. To effectively deliver and communicate the analytical structure to the research audience, grounded theory researchers are advised to use visual representations such as tables, graphs, diagrams, figures, illustrations, flowcharts and framework (Renjith et al., 2021; Su, 2018). The next section will deal with memos writing, which is another requisite process grounded theory researchers must undertake throughout the grounded theory analysis procedure. 5.5.3 Writing Memos Memos are analytic notes. The process of memo-writing, also often referred to as memoing (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2014), is the compulsory analytical writing activity that every grounded theory researcher must perform throughout the iterative theory development. This process should be conducted in parallel with the hermeneutic analysis of the transcribed or recorded texts from the first processing of the data sources. The researcher should create a journey for successive memoing as early as the initial analysis begins. Charmaz (2014) suggests that this process helps prompt the researcher to be involved with the data and its analysis while increasing the abstraction level of their ideas.

130 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Two types of memos As important as the primary research data, the researcher’s are used as part of analytical memos are also crucial for the researcher to develop a the grounded theory theory. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the function of analysis: memos is to present the researcher’s analytical comments on those 1. Early memos, being studied. 2. Advanced memos. Concerning the grounded theory’s original idea, the method emphasizes developing a theory to ground in the data, which gives credence to the theoretical construction (Goulding, 2002). However, the analysis based on the data alone without a track record of analytic comments can be decried for less credibility. In other words, such a theory developed without systematic and logical memos risks being criticized for providing lower levels of description. Memos can be classified into two types regarding the level of abstraction the researcher reflects on the data: early memos and advanced memos (Charmaz, 2014). Suggestions on the methods for writing the memos are as follows. Early Memos Early memos are the records of what the researcher sees happening in the data. At this early stage, the researcher writes memos to explore and fill out open codes. The researcher reviews and reflects on the research data trying to assign code names. While choosing the code names, the researchers should engage with the data by logically weaving their ideas into it, attempting to find appropriate code names that most fit the pieces of data and primarily predict relationships among the codes. These relationships can be any rationale linkages among the codes e.g. types, hierarchal patterns, grouping, sorting, basic characteristics, or statuses. The researcher may initially identify the code names using the same terms as the sources, such as the informants, used in providing the original data. This technique helps increase the confidence of further theory development to be grounded in the data. In the meantime, the researcher should analytically scrutinize the implicit, unstated or condensed meaning in those codes and write memos of their ideas (Charmaz, 2014). Then, the early memos should guide the researchers to further literature reviews trying to find the linkages between what emerge from the collected data and those already existing as acceptable knowledge in the field. This process of critically comparing the memos with the related literature not only helps the researcher refine the codes but also links the emerging conceptions and the

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 131 researcher’s analytic ideas with disciplinary knowledge. It can also Example 5.6: Suggested lay a foundation for strengthening scholarly arguments and table format for keeping discussions in the later stages of higher coding levels. records and references of code names Example 5.6 suggests how a researcher may use a table to keep records on the references of the code names. Project Title: ............................................................ Author, date (the literature) Subject area Coding name(s) and level(s) Purpose of study Research method Key findings Analytic notes Source: the author. Advanced Memos Advanced memos are the track records of the researcher’s progressing analytical abstractions. Writing memos at this stage requires the researcher to trace and categorize the data incorporated into the research topic (Charmaz, 2014). The researchers must be able to critically describe how the categories emerge and make a change in their sorting and organization when necessary, e.g., the categories may not adequately represent the data as the analysis proceeds to another data source or informants. Additionally, the researcher should start proposing assumptions regarding the emerging conceptual ideas they theoretically sensitize from analyzing the data and organize their thoughts based on the generated categories. Memos at this stage also include the analytic notes taken from reviewing and reflecting the identified axial or focused coding and their associated proposed hypotheses, recognized as theoretical memos (Miles et al., 2014). At this higher level of abstract writing, the researcher needs to support their memo-writing with evidence. Hence, they must constantly compare across diverse data sources as well as related literature. Any coincidence or contradictory issues must be critically reviewed and explained theoretically. Advanced memos also function as the researcher’s draft for research presentation (Charmaz, 2014), given that the credibility of grounded theory relies on the strength of its systems for the logical construction of theory. See Example 5.7 for suggested forms for

132 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management keeping logical records of advanced memos. The advanced analytic notes are, therefore, an essential element.4 Example 5.7: Suggested Project Title: .................................................................................................. table format for composing advanced Investigative Axial codes Selective codes memos. Proposition Identified Related What How relationships literature (the (emerging across findings hypothesis) categorizes Proposition 1 Proposition 2 Source: the author. The following section will explain the constant comparison strategy, which benefits not only critical and credible memo writing but also the overall processes of the grounded analysis towards the theory construction. 5.5.4 Fieldwork Notes Fieldwork notes are always required concerning the researcher’s presence to record significant incidents as they visit the fieldwork site. The requirement of such records also applies to collecting data from the documents and audiovisual materials, despite these two data sources not usually referred to as fieldwork. The researcher’s presence as they review and analyze the sources is considered the researcher’s presence at the data sources. Therefore, in addition to processing the data collected from the sources, Creswell and Creswell (2017) suggest that the researchers and the research team members in charge of managing the data should also get additional prepared forms for recording fieldwork details. Furthermore, such fieldwork notes must also serve an organizing and analyzing purposes. Example 5.8 is an example of such a fieldwork note form. Furthermore, the fieldwork notes are often used as part of the grounded theory data analysis towards the theory construction. 4See Case 5.4, \"Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers\" by Manuell and Graham (2017) , at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 133 Project Title: ........................................................... Example 5.8: Document code/no. Suggested details for Interviewer/observer ’s name interviews/focus group Respondent’s name (s) discussions/observations Place fieldwork notes Date Time Duration Event Planned Agenda Field Notes Raw Notes Setting and atmosphere Recording audio(Y/N) Extras Live analytic comments Source: the author. 5.5.5 The Constant Comparison Strategy Four stages of the constant comparison: As introduced at the beginning of this chapter, the grounded 1. Comparing incidences theory method is the method of constant comparison . In The applicable to each Discovery of Grounded Theory book, Glaser and Strauss (1967, category; p.105) defines this method to consist of \"four stages of constant 2. Integrating categories comparison\" as follows: comparing incidences applicable to each and their properties; categories, integrating categories and their properties, delimiting 3. Delimiting the theory; the theory, and writing the theory. and 4. Writing the theory. Bryant (2017) recognizes that constant comparison is a central Source: Glaser and aspect of the grounded theory method, considering that it applies Strauss (1967, p.105) throughout the grounded theory analysis. Although qualitative data analysis involves constant comparison across the data, what makes grounded theory different from other methods is the constant comparison of this method is the aggregation of its theoretical sampling procedure. That is, the constant comparisons in grounded theory serve not only the data analysis but also the sampling for further data collection as part of the essential procedure towards the theoretical saturation in grounded theory research.5 As a reminder, theoretical saturation in grounded theory analysis means no new insights are found when the researcher 5See Case 5.5, \"Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project\" by Ngadimin et al. (2018) , at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

134 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management employs a proposed emerging theory to guide the criteria for the purposive sampling for the theory testing. Theoretical sampling is an essential part of the iterative process of grounded theory analysis, which comprises initial deductive and inductive reasoning through multiple data collection and analysis phases. Therefore, the grounded theory researchers must constantly compare not only the data but also the memos, the codes, and all the related literature as they create hypotheses, pretentiously recognized by Charmaz (2014) as the bones of a working skeleton or the grounded theory ultimately developed. The logic and purpose of constant comparison in the grounded theory method can be illustrated in Figure 5.5. Figure 5.5: The Basic of Constant Comparisons in Grounded Theory Study Source: Based on Bryant (2017, p.97). Explanation: The constant comparison strategy of the grounded theory method is not a linear process; instead, Bryant (2017, p.97) states that it is \"a spiral\". The research starts the coding from the lower level of abstraction by organizing and categorizing unstructured pieces of data logical arrangements. The researcher worked towards the higher levels of coding by revisiting all the primary sources of the data as loops, often with the search and retrieve techniques, to affirm the identified codes and category names. The procedure repeats in all the abstraction levels until the analysis finally reaches theoretical saturation. The following section will discuss grounded theory development, which is the expected ultimate outcome of grounded theory studies.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 135 5.6 Grounded Theory Development Theoretical development in grounded theory study is iterative and The term grounded emerging. As explained in the earlier sections, the interactive theory can be both the processes of the grounded theory method involve the theoretical technique’s method and sampling procedures comprising various phases, or loops, of outcome. The theory multiple data collection, data analysis, theory building, and theory developed using this testing. Towards the theoretical saturation, the developed theory method is known as an as the outcome of this method is commonly affirmed as emerging emerging grounded theory. substantive or formal theory. Discussions on these speculative characteristics are as follows. 5.6.1 The Emerging Theory The central focus is to logically extract the emerging concepts gradually developing from the lower level of open coding towards the higher level of abstraction when the theory saturates. Hence, the provisional outcomes as part of the theory development derive as theoretically relevant aspects (Timonen et al., 2018), or emerging codes, categories, properties, and dimensions (Ngadimin et al., 2018). These emerging elements also form variations, hierarchies, and other possible relationships among data across the different sources and phases of collection. According to Goulding (2002) these transitory outcomes are the emerging story as the study progresses on the theory development. With the openness of the method, the eventual outcome of this open-ended process can be claimed when the researcher sensitizes, e.g., sees, hears, or experiences the same things over and over again across all the data sources and their own notes, both early and advanced. In other words, as Merriam and Tisdell (2015, p.219) suggests, “the best rule of thumb is that the data and emerging findings must feel saturated; that is, you begin to see or hear the same things over and over again, and no new information surfaces as you collect more data.” Therefore, the expected outcome of the grounded theory study is an emerging finding (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) or emerging theory (Oast and De Allegri, 2018) or, specifically, an emerging grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014).6 6See Case 5.6, \"Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study\" by Abdel- Fattah (2015) at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

136 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Grounded theory, as 5.6.2 Substantive and Formal Grounded Theories a research outcome, can be either formal or A substantive theory is developed from working in a specific area; it substantive. aims at providing explanation inside, not outside, this specific area of study. On the other hand, a formal theory is developed aiming A substantive theory at a higher level of explanatory power and generalizability. In this is a lower level theory sense, the substantive theory is a context-specific theory. Formal constructed as a theory, on the other hand, is a context-free theory. hypothetical explanation applicable to a specific The outcomes of grounded theory starey are usually research setting. substantive to the specific areas of investigation. Novel knowledge A formal theory is a development from grounded theory economics and management higher level theory research is usually context-specific knowledge (Finch, 2002). It is a with higher explanatory type of practical knowledge in which the implication and power across a range of replication require comparative contextual conditions as an situations. essential basis for the application. Considering inquiries into economic and management problems, different areas of studies, such as selected fieldwork, individuals, or organization, are often diverse and different profiling. Therefore, it is challenging for grounded theory to deliver a formal theory for which its application is generalizable, universal, and uniform. Additionally, most researcher refers to the grounded theorist functioning as an essential research instrument for interpreting the inquired phenomenon as using the theoretical sensibility. However, there is a recognition of seeing this role as a non-unified procedure and highly subjective, as Finch (2002, p.215) refers to this role as the researcher “making imaginative connections” when they employed grounded theory in attempting to develop economic theory and claiming a novel knowledge development. Therefore, it is a challenge for the grounded theory study to deliver a formal theory concerning its rather not unified procedure and the highly subjective inductively determined methodological procedure. Despite challenging, using a grounded theory to develop a formal theory that theoretically explains the studied phenomenon is possible (Goulding, 2002; Glaser, 1992; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). However, as pointed out by Hill and Meagher (1999) and Coast (2017), the attempt to make grounded theory a formal theory can cost tremendous resources concerning its open-ended processes. Furthermore, grounded theory requires multiple phases of data collection through theoretical sampling, which is used for setting out further data collection criteria and further in the field. Since these time-consuming and resource-consuming processes need to continue until the emerging theory reaches saturation, if the research aims to develop a formal context-free theory, a grounded theory without specific clarifications of contextual

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 137 conditions and boundary of investigation can result in exceedingly budget or, else, incomplete research. Grounded theory, as a research outcome, can be either substantive7 or formal, depending on the research objective, the specification of the area under the investigation, and resource availability. However, although possible, is needs to be aware that using the grounded theory method to develop a formal theory can be a tremendous time and resource-consuming project. 5.7 Research Triangulations Triangulation is an additional strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes, in addition to fundamental strategies of using systematic coding, analytical memo writing, and performing constant comparisons. Guba and Lincoln (2017) supports the use of triangulation as the instrument to assess the credibility and the confirmability of qualitative research. According to Bitsch (2005), methodological literature often suggests four types of triangulation: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological triangulation. The practical employment of these triangulating techniques is explained as follows. 5.7.1 Data Triangulation Four types of research triangulations: Data triangulation refers to qualitative researchers using various 1. Data triangulation, data sources instead of using only a single source, or type, of data. 2. Investigator For instance, research collecting data using open-ended interviews triangulation, to collect primary research data for exploratory purposes can also 3. Theoretical use documentary analysis of publications and texts as the triangulation, secondary source research data. The researcher uses multiple data 4. Methodological sources to answer the research question in data triangulation. By triangulation. doing so, the triangulation technique can vary the data collection across time, space, or different people. When the data is collected from different samples, places, or times, the results are more likely to be generalizable to other situations. 5.7.2 Investigator Triangulation Investigator triangulation means the researchers request additional assistance from other researchers to work as a team on the same 7See Case 5.7, \"Delivering Academic Services at Regional Level: a Grounded Theory Study of Thai Academics.\" by Chanthes (2010) at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

138 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management project. Concerning the matters of subjective influences and biases on the data analysis, this technique helps balance the predispositions of the data construction. Researchers can gather, process, or analyze data separately by using numerous observers or researchers in investigator triangulation. The likelihood of observer bias and other experimenter biases is decreased with the aid of investigator triangulation. 5.7.3 Theoretical Triangulation Theoretical triangulation is the technique in which researchers pursue and test the developed theory in various areas or use multiple phases to test the developed theory. It aims to bring various perspectives to bear on the data set. This technique is essentially an automatic procedure in grounded theory. The theoretical sampling procedure rather focuses on scrutinizing new emerging insights, not the predetermined size of samples. Therefore, theory triangulation in grounded theory involves its theoretical sampling procedure requiring the researcher to collect data and develop and test the conceptual ideas using multiple phases. 5.7.4 Methodological Triangulation Methodological triangulation refers to the use of multiple, instead of a single, methods, for the investigation of one specific inquiry. Using different investigative techniques to find answers to the particular question of the inquired phenomenon can reduce possible distortions or misrepresentations using a single method. This triangulating technique is generally adopted in mixed-methods research. This section has discussed the grounded theory method in practice concerning the data collection and analysis procedure, along with various examples of practical employment of the technique in economics and management research. Given the examples presented, grounded theory researchers usually visualize other significant procedures relating to the data processing to communicate with the research audience how they systematize the theory development as the research outcomes. The following section will discuss the diverse underpinning philosophies which lead to the classification of grounded theories into three types: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theories.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 139 5.8 Using Computer Software in Grounded Theory Computer-Assisted Data Analysis Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) is Various clerical tasks, such as filing research data, indexing, pronounced “cactus” photocopying, cutting and pasting pieces of text related to a code, (Yin, 2011, p.180). and sorting codes and categories, are required for qualitative data analysis. As pointed out by Flick (2018), all of these activities are laborious, time-consuming, and prone to clerical mistakes. To minimize such errors, Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), pronounced “cactus” (Yin, 2011, p.180), is often used by grounded theory researchers to organize data more effectively and manage the complexity of grounded theory analysis. There are several such software applications. Each is supplied by a separate vendor, and the cost of any one software might surpass 30,000 Thai Baht. ATLAS-ti, NVivo, and MAXqda appear to be popular applications. There are also other software packages available e.g. HyperRESEARCH, QDA Miner, Qualrus, and Transana (Costa et al., 2022; Silverman, 2020). Each manufacturer also regularly releases upgraded versions. Although the usage of a CAQDAS program is not required, it facilitates the challenges of maintaining error-free data and code records and accessing information throughout analytical operations. In this context, variation on the CAQDAS programs are essentially developed to support code-and-retrieve activities (Bryman, 2021). Therefore, using CAQDAS was only marginal to the tasks of the grounded theory analysis. Goulding (2002, p.94) points out that theory construction is \"a mental activity\" where sensitivity to the data conceptualization is required. Concerning the researcher as the instrument used in qualitative data analysis, it should be noted that computers cannot replace the researcher’s role. For this reason, the use of CAQDAS in a grounded theory study provides no means of interpretive analysis in theory development. In other words, CAQDAS is rather recommended for work as a project clerk. It is used to follow the researcher’s commands to do only non-emotional and non-rational tasks. The following are the recommended steps: 1. First, the researcher stores physical records of data and information, such as interview transcripts, related documents and literature and photocopies of documents and related literature. 2. Secondly, the researcher enters the computer-assisted phase. At this point, the researcher should create a material

140 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management preparation system, including data input, filing, and indexing. This is to replace the physical use of filing cabinets and physical index labels for enhancing the code-and-retrieve procedure. Key activities are inputting, filling and indexing the data using the document management units in the CAQDAS software of the researcher’s choice. 3. Thirdly, the researcher moves to the grounded theory’s constant comparisons procedure, given that the two essential processes of coding are required throughout the analysis processes. Any properties generated during the operation, such as codes, categories of codes and the researcher’s memos, should be provisional as the construction of the theory continues. In practice, although using CAQDAS, some very time-consuming tasks are required and recommended to be performed manually; these include photocopying a pile of interview transcripts and related documents, performing a line-by-line analysis, using highlighters of various colors to mark important items, and generating initial codes before entering them into CAQDAS. Even though these techniques are time-consuming, they are deemed worthwhile since the researcher eventually grew familiar with the data, which proved to be very beneficial as the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity was also enhanced. 5.9 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter has explained the grounded theory design as management. It started with a practical guide on how to get started with grounded theory study. This introductory section explained how to ask appropriate grounded theory research questions to allow the investigation’s exploratory direction and identify the unit of analysis. It also outlined the standard grounded theory process. The following section introduced various types of qualitative data that are often essential for qualitative analysis. The chapter then emphasized the significance of literature review in grounded theory, which should be undertaken in three ways: preliminary literature review, during the data collection and analysis, and finalizing the theory development. Then, the chapter provided fundamental guidelines for grounded theory data collection and analysis. It explained the theoretical sampling procedure of the grounded theory method.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 141 The process required grounded theory researchers to undertake multiple phases, or iterative loops, of theory-building and theory-testing approaches of the emerging theory until it reached saturation. This part also outlined the four levels of grounded theory coding, classified by the level of abstraction: open, axial, selective, and theoretical. The following section explained memo writing methods, an essential process to help the researcher keep analytical notes as the grounded theory study proceeded. This section described how to write two types of memos, early and advanced memos, requiring the researcher to write throughout the grounded theory processes. This section also explained the constant comparison technique for grounded theory analysis. The researcher was advised to develop a system to make comparisons of coding and emerging concepts constantly and analytically across diverse data sources as part of the essential procedure toward theoretical saturation. Then, the chapter clarified and explained the two types of emerging theory, formal and substantive, as the grounded theory outcomes. After that, it explained an essential research strategy known as research triangulations as the technique to cross-check findings from qualitative methods. Finally, suggestions for possible practical use of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) were provided. The next chapter will discuss the reflection and evaluation of grounded theory study, focusing on the use of this method in the economics and management disciplines. Key Terms Advanced memo, 131 Investigator triangulation, 137 Axial coding, 124 Literature review, 115 Methodological triangulation, 138 CAQDAS, 139 Open coding, 124 Research triangulations, 137 Constant comparison, 133 Selective coding, 126 Data analysis, 119 Substantive theory, 136 Data collection, 119 Theoretical coding, 126 Data triangulation, 137 Theoretical sampling, 120 Early memo, 130 Theoretical triangulation, 138 Emerging theory, 135 Theoretical saturation, 117 Fieldwork note, 132 Unit of Analysis, 112 Formal theory, 136 Grounded theory process, 110

142 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 5.10 Exercises 1. What is technical and nontechnical literature used in qualitative research conduct? Provide some examples. 2. Discuss the contradicting ideas concerning the necessity of an initial literature review between the traditional grounded theory and modern grounded theory studies. Do you think grounded theorists should review preliminary technical literature before the first data collection? Discuss. 3. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the influences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry. Finish the tasks below: • Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. • Outlines the iterative process of your proposed project. • Identify the unit of analysis. • Plan on how you would start the initial data collection. Specify the possible types of the data and sources. • Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain. 4. Assuming you plan to research the industrial concentration of homestay businesses in a selected province in Thailand. You plan to use mixed methods research for your study. One is using quantitative analysis of existing industrial concentration theories of the economic discipline. You also plan to use a grounded theory method to examine the exploratory entrepreneurial perceptions and competitive behaviors of the locals who own homestay businesses in the selected geographical area. Finish the tasks below: • Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. • Identify the unit of analysis of your study. • Define how you would manage your research. Would it initially start with either a quantitative or qualitative method? Explain.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 143 • For the grounded theory part, form a set of initial questions to start with. • Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain. 5. Considering your answers to the question 4, declare the type of your proposed grounded theory project; is it a classical, pragmatic, or constructivist grounded theory? Are the underpinnings and types of the two projects similar or different? Explain. 6. What are research triangulations? How can a grounded theory researcher triangulate the grounded theory study and its results? Explain.

144 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Appendix: Practical Examples Case 5.1: Using Case 5.1: Using Functional Properties Derived from the Functional Properties Literature Review Derived from the Literature Review Case 5.1 is a practical example of how an empirical \"Using a Grounded Theory economics researcher can utilize variables collected from Method in an Empirical the literature to design a cases study grounded theory Case Study of Knowledge- research. Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Chanthes (2021) used a preliminary literature review Organic Rice Farming to help construct a case boundary of the grounded theory Community Enterprise in case study, asking a research question how is a knowledge- Thailand\" based entrepreneurship delivered in a local organic farming See also Case 5.1 Figure community? The selected case community was in the Northeast region of Thailand. See Case 5.1 Figure. First, following the identification of the research question, the reviewed literature helped guide the investigative propositions and the unit of analysis of the case study. It can be seen from the illustration that the researcher utilized the preliminary literature intending to allow later room for other variables and conceptions to emerge as the investigation went on, which is a core procedure of grounded theory analysis. That is, given the two study propositions, 1 and 2, the researcher aimed to explore further hypothetical properties such as forms, activities, roles, impacts, and determinants. These properties were not yet identified and required the researcher to enter the fieldwork to scrutinize their elements from the research data. Following the illustration towards its final section, the researcher provided a direction for the grounded theory analysis. It also indicated the expected outcome of this study, aiming to deliver the examination of knowledge- based entrepreneurship development in the selected specific context of organic rice farming from the Northeast region of Thailand.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 145 Case 5.1 Figure: Designing a Case Study Grounded Theory Research Source: Based on Chanthes (2021, p.74). Explanation: Case 5.1 Figure is a practical example of how an economic research design a case study grounded theory research with an assistance of the preliminary literature. Chanthes (2021, p.74) asked a research question, how is knowledge-based entrepreneurship developed in a local organic farming community enterprise? This project was a case study requiring a case’s bounded system, or the specified investigative boundary for the specifically selected case, with the unit of analysis identified. The researcher reviewed preliminary literature to discover related variables to the research question and arrange those variables to help form two study propositions significant to knowledge-based entrepreneurial development: knowledge networks and innovative entrepreneurship. There was also room for emerging variables for the grounded theory to discover, given the two propositions, such as forms, activities, impacts, and determinants of the investigative properties.

146 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.2: Organizing the Case 5.2: Organizing the Codes in Economics Grounded Codes in Economics Theory Study Grounded Theory Study \"Using a Grounded Theory Case 5.2 is a continue practical example from Case 5.1 Method in an Empirical above. Providing the case’s bounded system, Chanthes Case Study of (2021) used the grounded theory method for examining Knowledge-Based the development of knowledge-based entrepreneurship in Entrepreneurship a selected case of local organic farming in the Northeast Development in an of Thailand. It can be seen that, despite the specific Organic Rice Farming boundary, the emerging codes identified throughout the Community Enterprise in coding process were not necessarily pre-determined. The Thailand\" boundary only helped organize the possible areas for logical See also Case 5.2 Table analysis, or possible conceptions of relevance to the research question. The terms such as forms, activities, roles, impacts and determinants allowed the openness and wide variety of codes to emerge from the research data. The researcher indicated the research motivation to involve recently Thailand’s national economic development concept known as Thailand 4.0, which included food production as one of its targeted industries driven by innovation and entrepreneurship. Also, the researcher adopted the national roadmap for organic production to create the case’ bounded system of investigation. By using the grounded theory coding procedure, the coding structure was finally developed and associated with, not forced into, the specified case’s boundary. The researcher adopted the grounded theory coding procedure comprising four code types, including open, axial, selective and theoretical coding. In order to communicate with the audiences, the research organized the emerging codes at all levels into a table format. See details in Case 5.2 Table.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 147 Case 5.2 Table: Codes Collection and the Substantive Theory Development Source: Based on Chanthes (2021, p.78). Explanation: Case 5.2 Table is a practical example of how an economics grounded theory organized emerging codes from the four coding levels. Chanthes (2021) summarized the grounded theory codes in a table format. From the bottom, the researcher started from Level 1, known as open codes or initial codes and their associated categories. Then, there were codes in Level 2, identified as Axial codes, showing the relationships across categories. After that, the researcher logically organized the axial codes into selective codes, the Level 3 coding, using the two propositions of the case’s bounded system. Finally, the selective codes were used to form theoretical codes, or hypothetical relationships of the selective codes properties, or the axial codes. The highest coding level was a substantive theory of the inquired case study, investigating the knowledge-based entrepreneurship development of the selected community enterprise in the Northeast region of Thailand.

148 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.3: Emerging Case 5.3: Emerging Codes in an Economics Grounded Codes in an Economics Theory Research Grounded Theory Research Case 5.3 is a practical example of how economic grounded \"A Constructivist theory research organizes the codes at different levels into a Grounded Theory table format to communicate with the research audiences. Investigation of Businesses’ Concerns About Mekawy (2022) investigate businesses’ concerns about Public-Private Partnership public-private partnership (the P3 strategies) responses Responses Toward towards COVID-19 using a constructivist grounded theory. COVID-19\" See also Case 5.3 Table The researcher used the grounded theory method to conduct a set of systematic inductive procedures for this qualitative research to explore the perceptions of tourism businesses in peripheral destinations. The researcher’s objective was to develop a theory to understand better COVID-19’s impact on the future of P3 in the tourism industry in the substantive area of inquired phenomenon. The research data were collected using semi-structured interviews with purposively selected 26 participants with diverse professional backgrounds in the Marsa Alam of Egypt’s tourist industry. An additional source of the research data was 12 tourism P3s and governance reports. The researcher performed systematic coding through the open, axial and selective coding steps and critically analysis of the data. As a result, emerging concepts, issues, and concerns were identified for the research to construct a conceptual explanation of the studied area. As seen in Case 5.2 Table, the research states that codes emerging from the open coding level were derived from the primary research data, interview texts. Then, the higher-level coding, axial and selecting codes helped the researcher identify issues and concerns relevant to the research question: the perceptions of tourism businesses in the selected peripheral destinations in the studied region, Marsa Alam.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 149 Case 5.3 Table: Emerged Concerns from the Coding Process Source: Based on Mekawy (2022, p.17). Explanation: Case 5.3 Table is a practical example of how an economic research structured an emerging conceptions at different abstraction levels to lay a foundation for construction an outcome of a grounded theory study. Mekawy (2022, p.17) identified codes at the different coding levels as concepts, sub-issues, and concerns. The codes and concepts created from the interview texts were claimed as open codes. Then, they were logically organized into sub-issues, which the researcher claimed as higher-level or axial coding. After that, the selecting coding delivers emerging rationales concerning the relationships across the axial codes that were defied as concerns of the inquired phenomenon, namely business concerns about public-private partnership (3Ps strategies) of tourism businesses in the Marsa Allam region of Egypt.

150 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.4: Presentation of Case 5.4: Presentation of Advanced Memos Advanced Memos Case 5.4 is a practical example of how an organizational \"Grounded Theory: research uses a table to summarize the advanced memos. An Action Research The type of analytic notes are often presented in a research Perspective with Models publication. to Help Early Career Researchers\" Manuell and Graham (2017) adopted the grounded See also Case 5.4 Table theory method for organizational action research. The study’s objective was to examine the strategic planning for business and financial practices of a selected organization. The theory construction of this study grounding in multiple sources of data, including conversations; reviews of technical and nontechnical literature, e.g., books, peer- reviewed journal articles, emails, correspondence, research memoranda; media reports, journal entries, the researchers’ observational notes, organizational records and office memoranda, official minutes, reports, field notes, online sources, and photographs. As part of the research presentation, a table summarizing the researcher’s advanced analytic notes regarding the strategic planning of the studied organization was organized as presented in Case 5.4 Table below. The contents in the table were extracted concepts emerging from the analyzed data to address specific important aspects involving the improvement of the studied strategic planning matters.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 151 Case 5.4 Table: Demonstration of Data Relevance and Relationship Source: Based on Manuell and Graham (2017, p.8). Explanation: Case 5.4 Table is a practical example of how management research showed a part of the advanced memos. The table was presented in Manuell and Graham (2017, p.8), showing how the researchers used a table to organize the data relevance and the emerged relationship. There were three columns in the memo: concept, research rationale, and data for research. This analytic table was used as a part of the coding, which eventually delivered the research outcome as Manuell and Graham (2017) examined a selected organization’s strategic planning for business and financial practices.

152 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.5: Constant Case 5.5: Constant Comparison in Economics Research Comparison in Case 5.5 is a practical example showing how empirical Economics Research economics research illustrates the memo writing and \"Grounded Theory for constant comparisons undertaken as part of the grounded Assessing Economic Well- theory analysis. Ngadimin et al. (2018) employed grounded Being Loss Of Abandoned theory to examine job opportunity loss in the abandonment Shopping Centre Project\" of shopping center projects in Malaysia. Constant See also Case 5.5 Figure comparison was undertaken through the multiple phases of grounded theory analysis. They constantly compared not only the research data but also the fieldwork notes, the emerging codes at all levels, the memos, and the research data multiply collected from two abandoned shopping centers. It can be seen from Case 5.5 Figure that the constant comparison strategy was an ongoing process. The researcher constantly revisited primary data sources and compared emerging conceptual ideas with analytic writings. These basic steps are commonly found in practical, grounded theory studies. Researchers are advised not to rely on the theory construction on a single sequential data collection and analysis phase. Instead, any emerging common patterns need to be examined in all relevant data sources using the going back-and-fourth, revisiting loops, delimiting, and re-writing techniques.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 153 Case 5.5 Figure: General Scheme of a Constant Comparative Method Source: Based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1147). Explanation: Case 5.5 Figure is a practical example of how economics research illustrated its technique used as the general scheme of a constant comparative method. The Figure was presented in Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1147), showing that the researchers collected research data from two sites: operational shopping centers 1 and 2. During the grounded theory analysis, there were loops of data collection, note-taking, coding, and memoing undertaken back and forth between the data of the two sites. First, they comparatively analyzed incidents applicable to each identified category as part of the open coding. Then, they integrated the categories and their properties. Following this was the delimiting theory process. Finally, the logical ideas obtained from this constant comparison strategy were used in the theory writing. This process was followed by finding a common pattern in the theory generation and proposing a hypothetical situation for the selected case sites, two abandoned shopping center projects in Malaysia that caused job opportunity loss.

154 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.6: Grounded Case 5.6: Grounded Theory Analysis Framework Theory Analysis Case 5.6 is a practical example of how a researcher Framework communicates the processes of grounded theory research \"Grounded Theory and to saturate the theory. Abdel-Fattah (2015) employed Action Research as grounded theory action research to evaluate e-government Pillars for Interpretive information systems in Egypt. They chose the grounded Information Systems theory method to evaluate the e-government systems in Research: a Comparative Egypt by examining the experience of essential stakeholders, Study\" the users, and the government officials. The grounded theory method often involves multi-phase data collection and interconnecting processes between the data collection and analysis, requiring the researchers to visit the fieldwork, or the primary data sources, multiple times. Also, it is typical that the grounded theory method, as the research outcome, is claimed as a substantive theory providing the answers to the question given the clarification of the chosen substantive area of research, both in terms of the disciplinary and the geographical regions with specific profiles and contextual conditions. The researcher adopted essential techniques to strengthen the credibility of the grounded theory conduct and results. Using grounded theory as the method, first, the basic theoretical sampling procedure required the researcher to conduct multiple phases of data collection. Secondly, several triangulating techniques were used, including data, theory, methodological, and triangulations. Finally, the researcher specifically identified the substantive areas of investigation on the selected types of information systems, namely the university enrolment of the e- government systems, selected country, and specific investigative focuses on comparatively evaluating the service according to the users’ against the service providers’ perspectives. In terms of the delivery of research outcomes, the developed substantive theory was used for explaining the evaluation of e-government information systems used by the students and provided by responsible government officials. In addition, the proposed substantive theory and its associated hypotheses helped identify the substantive areas for the future development of the -studied e-government systems.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 155 Case 5.7: Research Process and Substantive Theory Saturation Case 5.7: Research Case 5.7. is a practical example presenting how a Process and Substantive management research communicates the processes of Theory Saturation grounded theory research to deliver a substantive theory. \"Delivering Academic Services at Regional Level: Chanthes (2010) employed grounded theory to examine a Grounded Theory Study the delivery of academic services to contribute to the of Thai Academics\" economic development of their regions. The study clarified See also Case 5.7 Figure the scope of investigation using a specific bounded system of a multi-site case study. The researcher collected qualitative data using semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis of institutional and government documents. As outlined in the flowchart in Case 5.7 Figure, the substantive area of the investigation is bounded within the contextual conditions concerning the regional, institutional and individual profiles of those academics and their universities selected as the case sites. Concerning the case’s boundary, the researcher declared the delivery of substantive grounded theory as the research outcome, providing the exploratory explanation of how academic staff in the studied regions contribute to the regional economies with their academic services.

156 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Case 5.7 Figure: Research Process and Substantive Theory Saturation Explanation: Case 5.8 Figure shows how Chanthes (2010) illustrated the use of grounded theory to examine the delivery of academic services at the regional level in Thailand. The researcher adopted a multi-site case study to design the investigative boundary. Given the research question asking how the services were delivered to make an impact on regional development, the researcher started the theoretical sampling using institutional documents as the initial data source. The researcher then used the initial analysis to develop the first interview data collection instrument used in a pilot study, followed by the interview fieldwork at the three selected universities, anonymously named A, B, and C. Then, there were the grounded theory coding loops as the researcher went back and forth across the lower and higher level case and across all data sources of all the fieldwork sites. Once the emerging theory was eventually saturated, the researcher claimed that the study finally proposed a substantive theory to explain three discovery aspects grounded in the data from Thailand. These aspects were bounded within academics’ regional, institutional and individual profiling as they performed service tasks to make a regional impact. Source: Based on Chanthes (2010, p.108).

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 157 References Abdel-Fattah, M. A. (2015) ‘Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study’, Egyptian Informatics Journal, 16(3), pp. 309–327. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eij.2015.07.002. Bitsch, V. (2005) ‘Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria’, Journal of Agribusiness, 345(2016–15096), p. 17. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press. Chanthes, S. (2010) Delivering Academic Services at Regional Level: a Grounded Theory Study of Thai Academics. PhD Thesis. University of Southampton. Chanthes, S. (2021) ‘Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand’, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72–81. doi: 10.34190/ERM.21. 066. Chanthes, S. and Sriboonlue, P. (2021) ‘Triple Helix Model in Practice: A Case Study of Collaboration in University Outreach for Innovation Development in Local Farming Community Enterprise in the Northeast Region of Thailand’, in ECIE 2021 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vol 1. Pafos, Cyprus: Academic Conferences limited, pp. 194–203. doi: 10.34190 /EIE.21.116. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Coast, J. (2017) Qualitative Methods for Health Economics. Rowman & Littlefield International Limited (G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series). Costa, A. P. et al. (2022) Computer Supported Qualitative Research: New Trends in Qualitative Research. Springer International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems). Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.

158 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Finch, J. H. (2002) ‘The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(2), pp. 213–234. doi: 10.1080/13501780210137119. Flick, U. (2018) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 191–215. Hill, E. and Meagher, G. (1999) Doing ‘Qualitative Research’ in Economics: Two Examples and Some Reflections. Sydney: The Open University (Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences). Jemna, L. M. (2016) ‘Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods’, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 9(9), pp. 154–167. LeCompte, M. D. and Schensul, J. J. (2010) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. 2nd edn. Plymouth: AltaMira Press. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) ‘Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers’, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74–90. Mekawy, M. A. (2022) ‘A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses’ Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19’, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 70(1), pp. 9–27. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 159 Ngadimin, N. F., Mar Iman, A. H. and Raji, F. (2018) ‘Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project’, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS), pp. 1142–1169. Oast, J. and De Allegri, M. (2018) Qualitative Methods in Health Economics, Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.93. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. Polhong, T. and Puangpronpitag, S. (2020) ‘Innovative Entrepreneurship in Local Cross-Country Freight Enterprises in Thailand’, in ECIE 2020 15th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Rome, Italy, pp. 468–475. doi: 10.34190/EIE.20.159. Puangpronpitag, S. (2015) ‘Entrepreneurship: A contemporary challenge to sustainable competitiveness of Thai Rubber farmers’, in European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Genoa, Italy: Academic Conferences International Limited, pp. 561–566. Punch, K. F. (2013) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. SAGE Publications. Radović-Marković, M. and Alecchi, B. A. (2016) Qualitative Methods in Economics. Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315532257. Randall, W. S. (2012) ‘Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), pp. 863–880. Renjith, V. et al. (2021) ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research.’, International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, p. 20. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_321_19. Rowlands, B. H. (2005) ‘Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research to Build Theory’, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(1), pp. 81–92. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications. Suangsub, P., Chemsripong, S. and Srisermpoke, K. (2022) ‘High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand’, Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 15(1), pp. 98–112. Timonen, V., Foley, G. and Conlon, C. (2018) ‘Challenges When Using Grounded Theory: A Pragmatic Introduction to

160 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Doing GT Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), pp.1-10. doi: 10.1177/1609406918758086. Wertz, F. J. et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. Guilford Publications. Yin, R. K. (2011) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Publications.

C6 Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 6.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Discourses on For every research design, quantitative, qualitative, and a mixture qualitative research of both, the research conduct needs to be reflected and evaluated assessment, page 162 for its quality and credibility. Therefore, the chapter will deal with Classicla criteria, the subsequent essential matters following the use of grounded page 163: theory study as a suitable method: the reflection and evaluation of validity, the technique. reliability generalization For grounded theory, the outcomes should be a theory first Method-Appropriate and foremost (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The results-oriented Criteria: the grounded theory should identify the theoretical concepts and relationships theory focus, page 168 that are frequently stated as hypothetical probability assertions. Practical example, According to Glaser (1978), hypothetical probability assertions page 174 describe how one notion influences and interacts with another. Therefore, the theory must be written conceptually (i.e., about concepts) and theoretically (i.e., about the relationships). The product/result should not, as is customary in many qualitative approaches, describe the data or participants. Therefore, the theory should not mention the participants unless they are used as an illustration of a theoretical notion or link. Additionally, it should not generate themes, as thematic analysis does. Constant comparative analysis results in the finding of a core category (Glaser, 1992), which is the primary pattern of behavior that addressed the data-driven challenge. Core category is used interchangeably with core variable core concept in some publications. The core category is the key concept of the theory that describes how people in the research area resolve what they

162 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Research Assessment find troublesome. All other notions in the theory connect to and is a critical procedure explain this central category. The reviewer must first examine for reflecting the whether the theory clearly identifies a central category and the credibility of research theory’s centrality. Then, the examiner should decide whether the by applying various other concepts link to the theory’s centrality and contribute to the criteria developed explanation of the core category. by the researcher as appropriate to the nature Various propositions of how qualitative research should be and characteristics of the assessed, or evaluated, can be classified into two groups (Flick, study. 2018): classical and method-appropriate. The chapter, therefore, will begin by outlining issues and debates regarding the quality judgement of qualitative research, with a particular focus on the grounded theory method. The second section will explain the three classical criteria for research evaluation. Then, considering the discussions and discourses on the appropriateness of using the classical criteria for judging qualitative research, the third section focuses on evaluating qualitative research and will deal with the increasing use of method-appropriate criteria, wildly adopted as alternative measures for qualitative studies. Then, the final section will critically discuss the use of classical and method-appropriate criteria, both evidently employed by diverse economics and management grounded theory studies. This concluding section will ultimately offer critical considerations for grounded theory researchers to choose the most suitable judgment criteria for their research. Two different 6.2 Discourses on Qualitative Research Assessment propositions to judge qualitative research: \"A reliable research is a credible research. Credibility of a classical and method- qualitative research depends on the ability and effort of the appropriate criteria. researcher\" (Cypress, 2017, p.258). Qualitative research is broadly employed in economics and management studies. It is widely considered suitable to tackle a broader range of economic and managerial problems to understand better the details of phenomena being difficult to address with qualitative methods (Bitsch, 2005). However, evaluating its rigor and credibility can be problematic and debated. At present, issues on the criteria for evaluating qualitative research are still actively raised by the persistent concern with the rigor and credibility matters. Scientific and quantitative research methods are mostly rooted in positivist paradigms. They believe that reality is externally and can be made sense of objectively. Therefore, these methods usually adopt the traditional criteria known as the trinity of validity,

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 163 reliability, and generalizability to evaluate the research quality (Flick, 2018). Unlike quantitative research, the criteria used for evaluating qualitative research can be diverse and ununified concerning its variety, complex and subject-oriented designs. Guba and Lincoln (2017) point out that the problem of diversity, hence criticizing on different perspectives and argumentative views on how qualitative research should be assessed has not yet been solved. According to Flick (2018), the different propositions of appropriate way to judge the merit of qualitative studies can be classified into three groups: classical, method-appropriate and ongoing criteria. The following sections will provide explanations and discussions on how grounded theory studies employ these criteria for reflecting and evaluating the research. 6.3 Classical Evaluation Criteria Most positivist and post-positivist researchers support the use of Classical evaluating classical criteria of validity, reliability, and generalization. Rooted measures available in the positivist worldview, this group of researchers believes in an for judging the objective meaning of the phenomenon being studied. Therefore, credibility of grounded they perceive the explanation to those being studied, such as theory research are individuals, organizations, or phenomena, should be external, validity, reliability, and accurate, and standardized. generalization. There are controversial debates, against and supportive, of using classical criteria to judge grounded theory study. Various criticisms and rationales for using the criteria are discussed in this section as follows. 6.3.1 Validity in Grounded Theory Validity refers to the accuracy of how the research is conducted and delivers the results. Researchers must be able to explain how they conclude that the selected method was valid. The researcher’s validity is closely related to ethical conduct. Every researcher is expected to ensure that the study has been carried out ethically (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Su, 2018). Using the results to explain those studied must be accurate. There are various ways researchers can undertake to ensure validity. For example, Yin (2017) suggests four classical tests of research comprising three validity tests and a reliability test: 1. internal validity (the research results are accurate when used to explain those studied);

164 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Validity refers to the 2. external validity (the research results provide rigorous accuracy of how the implications when applied to other situations); research is conducted and delivers the results. 3. construct validity (correct items are identified as operational measures, also known as hypothetical contracts (Creswell and Creswell, 2017); and 4. reliability (the research results are the same when repeating the same research procedure). Similarly, Kvale (2002) indicates validity as a component of the trinity of reliability, validity, and generalization. The assessment of validity focuses on the accuracy of the research results. That is, when revisiting the site, the derived results should explain those studied accurately. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) suggests that researchers, quantitative and qualitative, must carefully apply the standard well-developed and accepted design for the investigation to make the research acceptable for validity. Considering the importance of research validity, however, there are criticisms against using validity in qualitative research, in which the designs are flexible, context-oriented, and difficult to standardize. Therefore, validity is sometimes decried as not suitable for the characteristics of qualitative studies. Various criticisms against using validity to assess qualitative research concern the underlying interpretative paradigms. Debating issues relate to the following: the role of the researcher as an analysis instrument; the multiple realities; unmeasured variables; and the lack of hard and fast rules of procedure, especially for those methods allowing the absence of specific data collection and analysis planning in advance of the fieldwork (Goulding, 2002). Although regarded as qualitative research, grounded theory study is considered distinctive from typical qualitative research and claimed to have a standard well-developed design (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The constant comparison strategy, the iterative theoretical sampling strategy, and the dynamic development of emerging theory is argued to be the standard procedure to promote the research validity in grounded theory research (Corbin and Strauss, 2015) and help increase the scientific value of its results (Charmaz, 2014). Therefore, grounded theory study defends the validity in assessing this method as suitable, regarding the methodological guidelines emphasizing the comparative methods and standardized steps for coding emerging open, axial, selective, and

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 165 theoretical codes. Its procedure is argued to be well-developed, variable-oriented, standardized, systematic, and transparent. 6.3.2 Reliability in Grounded Theory Reliability refers to the repeatability of the Reliability refers to the repeatability of the research. That is, when research. That is, when using the same conduct, the same outcomes are expected to derive. using the same conduct, Reliability is broadly accepted as an appropriate evaluating the same outcomes are criterion. However, it is often criticized for not being suitable for expected to derive. judging qualitative research, especially the methods allowing subjectivity as part of the interpretation practice concerning the different subjective beliefs, biases, and values (Guba and Lincoln, 2017). Considering the matters of subjectivity, it can be challenging to repeat the data collection processes and then get the entirely exact results from qualitative studies of social interactions and human experiences. Therefore, using the reliability logic, the possibility of imperfect repeatability of results may lead to judging the grounded theory method as having less reliability quality. All three types of grounded theory study accept subjectivity, regardless of the different philosophical paradigms that classified them as objectively (positivist classical grounded theory) or subjectively determined (interpretivism pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory) interpretive procedure. That is, the classical, pragmatic, and constructivist grounded theory accepts the existence of subject matters in social sciences research, economics, and management. Despite the acceptance of subjectivity, reliability can still be used for reflecting and evaluating grounded theory by providing several considerate rationales as follows: 1. First, grounded theory researchers may declare the substantive area of investigation. 2. Second, an adequate theoretical sampling procedure should provide suitable criteria with logical flows for the multi-phase data collection and analysis throughout the research procedure. 3. Thirdly, the theoretical saturation strategy is accomplished based on multi-phase iterative data collection and analysis. The processes are logically guided by theoretical sampling or hypothetical purposeful sampling criteria for sequential theory-building and theory-testing. Therefore, these systematic

166 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study analytical practices have repeatedly tested the grounded theory results before reaching multiple saturation. Thus, adequate theoretical saturation should deliver research results with the possibility of complete repeatability. Third, the adequate theoretical samplings and sufficient data collection and analysis should satisfy the reliability criteria. Thus, any incongruous conduct during the theoretical sampling processes may lessen the research’s reliability. Generalizability 6.3.3 Generalizability in Grounded Theory concerns how widely a study’s results can be Generalizability is the third classical measurement used to make used. judgments about the credibility of research. As pointed out by Cypress (2017), the quality of the research is related to how widely a study’s results can be used and, by extension, how well the validity or trustworthiness of the research can be tested and improved. Generalizability in inductive qualitative research is a bottom-up strategy (Borgstede and Scholz, 2021). The bottom-up generalization technique is predicated on the notion that situations can be categorized as more or less similar depending on qualities that are not included in the evaluated model. The bottom-up technique is valid if a cross-context similarity connection is feasible. For the bottom-up notion of generalization by induction to analogous situations, replications are a method for investigating a theory’s boundary conditions. Therefore, failure replications can lead to doubt about the theory’s applicability. Critics of not using generalization as an appropriate criterion are concerned with the relatively small sample size of qualitative data compared to those sampled for quantitative research. However, from the grounded theory’s point of view, the small sample does not necessarily imply a smaller chance for generalization. Many grounded theory researchers choose classical criteria to incorporate with their initial selection of grounded theory. For instance, Randall (2012) chooses grounded theory over other qualitative theory methods concerning its ability to build theory to be tested using scientific evaluation criteria used to test qualitative methods. That is, with a specific substantive framework for constructing theory, the grounded theory method uses an aggregate, inductive, and pattern-seeking method to relate behavior to more abstract ideas (categories and attributes) (Charmaz, 2014). Furthermore, considering the grounded theory coding strategies, all the code levels need to be interwoven into the constitution. Therefore, the constructed theory using this

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 167 variable-oriented procedure throughout the processes will deliver results to apply in the broader generalization. Another supportive reason involves the constant comparison strategy requiring grounded theory researchers to review technical literature or related theories and previous studies in the disciplinary area as a crucial part of the theory construction. The choice of technical terms to fit the emerging concepts is significantly related to the knowledge in the field. The conceptual properties constituting the highest level of codes, or the theoretical codes, are considered generalizable. The grounded theory, as an outcome of the study, is comparable based on the relevant variables. Hence the generalization is recognized as apparent. There is, however, an important critique of employment generalizability to evaluate a grounded theory study, which is considered a type of qualitative research. In quantitative research, generalization, which is an act of thinking that involves drawing broad generalizations from specific observations, is commonly accepted as a quality standard. However in qualitative research, it is more disputed. Critics of not using generalization as an appropriate criterion are concerned with the relatively small sample size of qualitative data compared to those sampled for quantitative research. However, from the grounded theory’s point of view, the small sample does not necessarily imply a smaller chance for generalization. 6.3.4 Rationales for Considering Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory Providing criticisms and supportive rationales for the classical scientific measures discussed above, essential considerations on using classical criteria in grounded theory study are summarized in Table 6.1, next page.

168 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Table 6.1: Considerations on Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. 6.4 Method-Appropriate Criteria in Qualitative Research According to Flick (2018), qualitative processes are peculiar. Therefore, method-appropriate criteria concern the specific individuality and specificity of the qualitative research processes, which could be differently designed across different projects. Despite the flexibility, the merit of qualitative methods is judged based on these processes (Guba and Lincoln, 2017). Hence, to not use classical criteria of validity, reliability, or generalization, and to instead use method-appropriate criteria, the grounded theory

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 169 research need to provide a convincingly rational explanation of their choice. Some researchers have long been concerned about the interpretive nature of qualitative data collection. The reliability of qualitative data based on immediate interactions recorded by solitary, possibly biased qualitative observers has been questioned by quantitative researchers. To address these concerns, qualitative researchers scrambled to adopt a dispassionate stance toward their studies. Such issues have sparked debates regarding the role of interpretation in the ensuing analyses. Therefore, to judge the grounded theory processes using method-appropriate criteria, including the iterative theoretical sampling, coding of the open, axial, selective, and theoretical codes, constant comparison, and theoretical saturation processes. 6.4.1 Method-Appropriate Criteria for Grounded Method-appropriate Theory Study criteria are alternative measurements used for Concerning the motivation for Glaser and Strauss (1967) to invent assessing the credibility the grounded theory method, qualitative researchers have paid less of grounded theory attention to the entire research process as interactive, possibly research. because many of them were vying for a place in traditional quantitative scientific discourses and thus sought objectivity. That is, in the past, the shroud of objectivity surrounding grounded theory obscured its interactive strength. Glaser and Strauss (1967) acknowledged that grounded theory requires criteria to specify the specific research design and, more crucially, to assess the emerging theory. When they first articulated grounded theory as a methodology, they established criteria for determining the theory’s applicability. Glaser (1992) increased the criteria over time to include fit, understandability, relevance, grab, general, functionality, control, and modifiability. A hypothesis anchored in the data satisfies these conditions. The hypothesis must closely match the data and the replacement region. Due to its compatibility with the data and substantive domains, the theory should be understandable and relevant to both experts and nonprofessionals in the field (Linden and Palmieri, 2022). When a theory is intelligible and applicable, it frequently has grab, which means it is intriguing and memorable to individuals within the subject area (Glaser, 1978). In addition, the theory must be sufficiently general to be \"applicable to a multitude of diverse daily situations within the substantive area\" (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.23), allowing it to function by explaining what happened, predictinging what will happen, and

170 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Examples of method- interpreting what is happening in the substantive area and appropriate criteria allowing the user some measure of control within the situation e.g. fit, work, (Glaser, 1978) . Also, the theory must be adaptable when new relevance, modifiable, evidence is introduced and the subject matter evolves over time. In trustworthiness, addition, the grounded theory procedure should be economical. authenticity, and the Thus, the theory should contain just the concepts that represent quality of specificity. appropriate behavior patterns and that are required to explain, predict, and analyze what is occurring in the subject area. Consequently, different scholars suggest various appropriate criteria possibly adopted for qualitative grounded theory. For instance, Glaser (1978) recommends the criteria of fit, work, relevance, and modifiable for judging grounded theory research. Another suggested criteria, Denzin and Lincoln (2017) recommend trustworthiness and authenticity as the criteria, specifically for constructivist studies. Alternatively, Nowell et al. (2017) points out that trustworthiness criteria are met when a qualitative research can provide critical reflections to support its credibility, dependability and confirmability. The other suggestion by Corbetta (2011), recommends using the quality of specificity to evaluate qualitative results. 6.4.2 Choosing Evaluating Criteria for a Grounded Theory Study Notwithstanding the variation of positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theories, the modern and reflexive grounded theory maintains interaction with the research data and emerging ideas. Moreover, it does so in ways that encourage the development of abstract interpretations. From the researcher’s tentative interpretations in initial coding and memos toward the final project, grounded theory methods allow the researcher’s fleeting thoughts and immediate questions and encourage you to give your ideas concrete form through analytical writing. In modern days, grounded theory researchers reflect their studies using classical and method-appropriate criteria. The selection of measures depends on how they see the grounded theory method, either as a scientific method to deliver objectively determined results or as a qualitative interpretive study to deliver subjectively determined outcomes. For the former perspective, the classical measures are often the choice. Alternatively, the latter standpoint can opt for method-appropriate criteria. In summary, grounded researchers can choose single or multiple measures as they see suitable and convincing for performing rigorous research.

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 171 To provide examples, Table 6.2 classifies the example economics and management research publications used as the examples in the previous chapters regarding the selected criteria chosen for each study. It can be seen that there is a group of studies using the standard tests of classical criteria, namely validity, reliability, and generalizability. Another group is those choosing method-appropriate measures for reflecting on and evaluating the research. Example Literature Selected Criteria Type of Criteria Table 6.2: Different Abdel-Fattah (2015) Validity Classical Selections of Criteria Chanthes (2021) Rigor Method-appropriate for Judging Grounded Transparency Theory Finch (2002) Explanatory function Classical Hill and Meagher (1999) Exemplifying quality Classical Manuell and Graham (2017) Validity Classical Mekawy (2022) Validity Method-appropriate Ngadimin et al. (2018) Validity Classical Randall (2012) Reliability Classical Rowlands (2005) Generalizability Classical Thai et al. (2012) Trustworthiness Classical Validity Turek and Krupnik (2014) Validity Classical Reliability Generalizability Validity Construct validity, External validity, Internal validity Reliability Validity Source: Abdel-Fattah (2015); Chanthes (2021); Finch (2002); Hill and Meagher (1999); Manuell and Graham (2017); Mekawy (2022); Ngadimin et al. (2018); Randall (2012); Rowlands (2005); Thai et al. (2012); Turek and Krupnik (2014). (See full list of references for further reading at the Chapter’s end.) Regardless of variations in criteria, Miles et al. (2014) suggests 13 tactics to generally help validate qualitative research findings: (1) checking for representativeness, (2) checking for researcher effects, (3) triangulating the findings, (4) weighting the evidence, (5) checking the meanings of outliers, (6) using extreme cases, (7) following up surprises, (8) looking for negative evidence, (9) making an if-then test, (10), ruling out spurious relations, (11) replicating a finding, (12) checking out rival explanations, and (13) getting feedback from informants. There are no specific rules on what should be used as suitable tactics. To provide a foreseeing defense of the research dibility, the

172 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study researcher must anticipate any possible critics of weakness or bad practices of the methods and the research measurements of their choice.1 6.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter has stated the necessity of grounded theory research reflecting and evaluating their research conduct and results. Compared to other types of qualitative research, grounded theory is distinctive regarding its various underpinning philosophies. The researcher could discuss and choose the stances from both the positivism and interpretivism paradigms. Also, concerning its variable-oriented analysis procedure, grounded theory is often claimed as a scientific method being able to be evaluated using standard scientific criteria, namely, validity, reliability, and generalizability. In the meantime, considering this is a qualitative method, it can also apply other criteria arguably as suitable by qualitative research tradition. Therefore, there are two propositions for evaluating criteria selection: classical and method-appropriate. This chapter has discussed the application of both propositions in practice. It has also provided critical suggestions for practical tactics grounded theory can claim to stress the rigor and credibility of the research regarding various evaluating criteria. The chapter has concluded that reflecting and evaluating grounded theory is flexible. Researchers need to develop efficient ways to design and manage their studies to fulfill the appropriate criteria of their choice. Also, they need to effectively communicate with the audiences, e.g., research funding bodies, journal editors, and general readers, concerning the well-planned and managerial practice of the study. Finally, this chapter has emphasized that the transparency and trustworthy research design, conduct, and presentation of results are considered the priory to strengthen the study’s credibility. The next part of this book is the concluding remarks on the grounded theory method. 1See Case 6.1, \"Straussian Grounded-Theory Method: An Illustration\" by Thai et al. (2012), at the Chapter’s Appendix as a practical example.

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 173 Key Terms Classical evaluation criteria, 163 Reliability, 165 Credibility, 162 Research assessment, 162 Generalizability, 166 Trustworthiness, 168 Method-appropriate criteria, 168 Validity, 163 6.6 Exercises 1. What are classical and method-appropriate criteria for research evaluation? Explain. 2. Do you consider grounded theory a scientific method? Discuss. 3. Do you consider classical criteria suitable for grounded theory? Discuss. 4. What are the criticisms for grounded theory unsuitable for applying classical scientific evaluation criteria? Explain. 5. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the influences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry, finish the tasks below: • Suggest appropriate evaluating criteria and explain the reasons for the selected criteria. • Suggest practical tactics to deliver a grounded theory that meets the selected criteria. 6. Provide examples of ground theory research from the existing literature in your disciplinary areas. Discuss the choices of evaluating criteria of these studies. 7. Discuss the possible management of grounded theory studies which could result in being evaluated as a bad research conduct. Then suggest the preventative procedure.

174 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Appendix: Practical Example Case 6.1: Tactics for Case 6.1: Tactics for Research Reflection and Evaluation Research Reflection Case 6.1 shows how researchers can critical reflect their and Evaluation study and use various tactics for enhancing the research evaluation. \"Straussian Grounded- Theory Method: An Thai et al. (2012, p.3) considered grounded theory Illustration\" as a “scientific method” considering its systematic coding procedure for detecting and explaining social phenomena. See also Case 6.1 They chose this method to study the new area of an empirical Table investigation on firms-based internationalization. They chose Vietnam as the empirical site of research. They intended to build an emerging theory grounded in the data of this selected substantive area, attempting to explain the internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in transition economies. They reflected the research conduct using the four standard tests comprising construct validity, external validity, internal validity, and reliability. In addition, in order to emphasis the rigorous research conduct, they transparently clarified the tactics for the grounded theory processes as presented in Case 6.1 Table.

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 175 Case 6.1 Table: Tactics to Minimize Potential Problems from Data Source Sources: Based on Thai et al. (2012, pp.22-23). Explanation: Case 6.1 Table is a practical example of how a grounded theory study declared the awareness of the possible methodological weakness of the method used. Thai et al. (2012, pp. 22-23) claimed using three essential tactics to minimize potential problems from using the grounded theory method to analyze the data sources, including interviews, documentation, and archival records. When conducting, reporting, or publishing qualitative research, the researcher must be able to reflect and pre-evaluate possible weaknesses and suggest possible preventions to any factors that could revalue the research conduct.

176 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study References Abdel-Fattah, M. A. (2015) ‘Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study’, Egyptian Informatics Journal, 16(3), pp. 309–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.eij.2015.07.002. Bitsch, V. (2005) ‘Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria’, Journal of Agribusiness, 345(2016–15096), p. 17. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612. Borgstede, M. and Scholz, M. (2021) ‘Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and Replication–A Representationalist View’, Front. Psychol, 12:605191, pp. 1–9. doi: doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.605191. Chanthes, S. (2021) ‘Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand’, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72–81. doi: 10.34190 /ERM.21.066. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Corbetta, P. (2011) Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. Sage. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Core textbook). Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Cypress, B. S. (2017) ‘Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations’, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), pp. 253–263. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 1–32. Finch, J. H. (2002) ‘The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(2), pp. 213–234. doi: 10.1080/13501780210137119. Flick, U. (2018) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 177 Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 191–215. Hill, E. and Meagher, G. (1999) Doing ‘Qualitative Research’ in Economics: Two Examples and Some Reflections. Sydney: The Open University (Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences). Kvale, S. (2002) ‘The Social Construction of Validity’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The qualitative inquiry reader. London: Sage, pp. 299–325. Linden, K. L. V. and Palmieri, P. A. (2022) ‘Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study: A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations’, Grounded Theory Review: an International Journal, 20(2), pp. 1–12. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) ‘Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers’, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74–90. Mekawy, M. A. (2022) ‘A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses’ Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19’, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 70(1), pp. 9–27. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Ngadimin, N. F., Mar Iman, A. H. and Raji, F. (2018) ‘Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project’, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS), pp.

178 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 1142–1169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018. 05.90. Nowell, L. S. et al. (2017) ‘Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), p. 1609406917733847. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847. Randall, W. S. (2012) ‘Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), pp. 863–880. Rowlands, B. H. (2005) ‘Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research to Build Theory’, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(1), pp. 81–92. Su, N. (2018) ‘Positivist Qualitative Methods’, in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 17–32. Thai, M. T., Chong, L. C. and Agrawal, N. M. (2012) ‘Straussian Grounded-Theory Method: An Illustration’, The Qualitative Report, 17(5), pp. 1–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160- 3715/2012.1758. Turek, K. and Krupnik, S. (2014) ‘Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies’, Zarządzanie Publiczne, 2(28), pp. 32–48. doi: 10.7366/1898352922803. Yin, R. K. (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.