Demo

["Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 29 Appendix: Practical Examples Case 1.1: Explanatory Mixed Methods Research Case 1.1: Explanatory Case 1.1. is a practical example of a management research using mixed methods in a an explanatory mixed methods. management research. \\\"Towards Innovative SMEs: Sriboonlue and Puangpronpitag (2019) used explanatory An Empirical Study of mixed methods research to conduct an empirical study of Regional Small and Medium the academic services of a public university in the Northeast Enterprises in Thailand\\\" region of Thailand. Since Thai universities are expected to contribute to the national economic development through academic services delivery, their study focused on how the services promote the innovative entrepreneurship development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The research began with a quantitative research phase, using a questionnaire survey instrument in search of essential variables for promoting entrepreneurship development. Results from the quantitative study formed a set of crucial factors accepted as the causes of innovative entrepreneurship promotion in SMEs. Then, the researcher used these studied factors to develop a qualitative research instrument for conducting in-depth interviews. Outcomes from the qualitative phase con\ufb01rmed the proposed variables of in\ufb02uencing factors for entrepreneurship development. As a result, the qualitative study helped enhance the interpretation of those testing variables by reporting the subjective experiences of the actors from both academic and private sectors involved in delivering academic services.","30 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Case 1.2: Example of Case 1.2: Exploratory Mixed Methods Research economic research using an Case 1.2 is a practical example of an economics research using exploratory mixed method. an explanatory mixed methods. \\\"Thailand 4.0\u2019s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Potjanajaruwit (2019) employed explanatory mixed Indicator Level\\\" methods research to study the development of innovation and technology of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the coconut sugar business in Samut Songkhram Province of Thailand. The research motivation was based on the national economic development concept, Thailand 4.0, aiming to increase its economic value with innovative business development. The researcher considered the importance of Thailand\u2019s national context and the domestic industrial context of coconut sugar. For this reason, the researcher decided to conduct a qualitative study to explore relevant factors of sugar business development in Thailand. The qualitative results were drawn from three in-depth interviews with key informants purposively selected from business executives or directors of coconut sugar SMEs in the studied province. Consequently, the results were used to guide the construction of a conceptual framework for the following quantitative research phase. The ultimate research outcomes delivered from this empirical study were factors, causes, and results of the innovation and technology a\ufb00ecting the competitiveness of SMEs in the coconut sugar industry in Thailand.","Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 31 Case 1.3: Convergent Mixed Methods Research Case 1.3: Example of Case 1.3 is a practical example of an economics research using economic research using a a convergent mixed methods. convergent mixed method design. Suangsub et al. (2022) used a convergent mixed methods \\\"High Performance design to study the key factors a\ufb00ecting higher performance Organization: A Case Study organizations (HPO) in the logistics industry in Thailand. The of the Logistics Industry in study had two objectives. One was to explore the practical Thailand\\\" e\ufb00ects of the high-performance work system (HPWS) on HPO. The other one was to examine the hypothetical relationships between the components of HPWS and HPO. For the \ufb01rst objective, the researchers conducted qualitative research using in-depth interviews with purposively selected four senior management of di\ufb00erent services logistics companies. The second objective was served by a quantitative study using factor analysis (FA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques. The two methods used were equally important. While retaining the central focus on the relationship between HPWS and HPO, the researcher separately discussed the \ufb01ndings from the qualitative and quantitative studies. As a result, qualitative outcomes derived via the grounded theory analysis helped suggest additional factors in broad areas of organizational management, including organizational culture, external environment, job characteristics, and job satisfaction. Concurrently, the quantitative \ufb01ndings assisted with the critical re\ufb02ections regarding the hypothetical components of HPWS and HPO.","32 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Case 1.4: Writing the Case 1.4: Writing the Philosophical Underpinnings Philosophical Underpinnings. Case 1.4 is a practical example of how a research publication \\\"Triple Helix Model in write the clari\ufb01cation for their qualitative method selection. Practice: A Case Study of The writing needs to provide critical considerations on the Collaboration in University philosophical underpinnings that make the qualitative method Outreach for Innovation appropriate for the research. Development in Local Farming Community Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021) studied the development of Enterprise in the Northeast knowledge-based entrepreneurship in an organic rice farming Region of Thailand\\\" community enterprise in Thailand. The project investigated the extent to which organic rice farming can increase its economic value through the enhancement of the entrepreneurial ability of local farming business management. After delivering critical philosophical discussions, the researchers ultimately clari\ufb01ed the choice of choosing a qualitative study as an appropriate research method, quoted below (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021, pp. 75-76) : \u201c[T]his research project was conducted qualitatively for \ufb01ve reasons as follows: \u2022 First, qualitative research is rooted in anti-positivist paradigms believing that it is essential to include subjectivity in studying human experience. \u2022 Second, the qualitative method would allow the researcher to examine the subjective meaning of the individuals\u2019 experiences. \u2022 Third, the researcher sought to directly approach the views of the individuals included in the investigation. \u2022 Fourth, the qualitative approach is context-oriented. This case study included examining constraints, or context, of the case\u2019s empirical setting as part of its investigation. \u2022 Finally, the qualitative technique would help with researcher to acquire a detailed description of the research inquiry.\\\"","Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 33 References Bailesteanu, G. (2009) \u2018Hermeneutics and Economics\u2019, Timisoara Journal of Economics, 2(3(7)), pp. 121\u2013128. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2021) Social Research Methods. 6th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chanthes, S. and Sriboonlue, P. (2021) \u2018Triple 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\u2019, in ECIE 2021 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vol 1. Pafos, Cyprus: Academic Conferences limited, pp. 194\u2013203. doi: 10.34190\/EIE.21.116. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Chia, R. (2002) \u2018The Production of Management Knowledge: Philosophical Underpinnings of Research Design\u2019, in Partington, D. (ed.) Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 1\u201319. Collins, H. (2018) Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. Bloomsbury Academic. Corbetta, P. (2011) Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. Sage. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2012) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) \u2018Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research\u2019, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th edn. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 1\u201332. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. R. (2015) Management and Business Research. 5th edn. SAGE Publications. Gomm, R. (2008) Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction. Bloomsbury Academic. Gould, S. J. (1995) \u2018Researcher Introspection as a Method in Consumer Research: Applications, Issues, and Implications\u2019, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), pp. 719\u2013722. Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. (1989) \u2018Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs\u2019,","34 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255\u2013274. doi: 10.3102\/01623737011003255. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) \u2018Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Con\ufb02uences\u2019, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 191\u2013215. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2019) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 4th edn. Routledge. Hughes, J. A. and Sharrock, W. W. (2016) The Philosophy of Social Research. Taylor & Francis (Longman Social Research Series). Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and Turner, L. . A. (2007) \u2018Toward a De\ufb01nition of Mixed Methods Research\u2019, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, pp. 112\u2013133. Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. A. (2019) \u2018Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research\u2019, Social Sciences. doi: 10.3390\/socsci8090255. Kyrychok, A. (2018) \u2018The Philosophy of positivism in economic science\u2019, Science and Education a New Dimension, VI(168), pp. 53\u201356. doi: 10.31174\/SEND-HS2018-168VI27-13. Lohse, S. (2017) \u2018Pragmatism, Ontology, and Philosophy of the Social Sciences in Practice\u2019, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47(1), pp. 3\u201327. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miller, S. A. (2017) Developmental Research Methods. SAGE Publications. Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2016) \u2018Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies and our research skills\u2019, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 25(2), pp. 37\u201338. doi: 10.1016\/j.redeen.2016.05.001. Partington, D. (2002) \u2018Grounded theory\u2019, in Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 136\u2013157. Phillips, D. C. and Burbules, N. C. (2000) Postpositivism and Educational Research. Rowman & Little\ufb01eld Publishers (G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series). Potjanajaruwit, P. (2019) \u2018Thailand 4.0\u2019s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Indicator Level\u2019, Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics, 2(15), pp. 19\u201329. Punch, K. F. (2013) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. SAGE Publications. Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107, M. and Alecchi, B. A. (2016) Qualitative Methods in Economics. Routledge. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315532257. Schoonenboom, J. and Johnson, R. B. (2017) \u2018How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design\u2019, KZfSS K\u00f6lner Zeitschrift f\u00fcr","Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 35 Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), pp. 107\u2013131. doi: 10.1007\/s11577-017-0454-1. Silverman, D. (2020) Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications. Sriboonlue, P. and Puangpronpitag, S. (2019) \u2018Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand\u2019, Procedia Computer Science, 158, pp. 819\u2013825. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.procs.2019.09.119. Stewart-Withers, R. et al. (2014) \u2018Development Field Work: A Practical Guide\u2019, in Stewart-Withers, R., Banks, G., and A., M. (eds) Qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Ltd, pp. 59\u201380. doi: 10.4135\/9781473921801. Suangsub, P., Chemsripong, S. and Srisermpoke, K. (2022) \u2018High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand\u2019, Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 15(1), pp. 98\u2013112. Turyahikayo, E. (2021) \u2018Philosophical Paradigms as the Bases for Knowledge Management Research and Practice\u2019, Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 13(2), pp. 209\u2013224. Von Wright, G. (1993) \u2018Two Traditions\u2019, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: SAGE Publications (DEH313 : Principles of social and educational research), pp. 9\u201313.","36 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research","C2 Qualitative Economics and Management Research 2.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Qualitative turn ineconomics The previous chapter discussed the philosophical underpinnings of and management research, qualitative research to be chosen as a suitable method. It pointed out page 38: \ufb01ve essential components for con\ufb01rming the suitability and necessity Phenomenology of using the qualitative approach in social research: a focus on Ethnography subjective worldviews, the researcher as the key instrument, an Narrative study inductive process, a context-oriented design, and the production of Case study rich descriptive classifying results. These components help social Action research researchers positively choose qualitative methods, concerning that Grounded theory quantitative techniques have limited particular abilities to meet these Fundamental considerations criteria. As a result, there are circumstances in which social for method selction, page 43: researchers, those in economics and management sciences included, The use of theory, need to employ qualitative research to approach the answers to their Investigative focuses inquiries. Qualitative outcomes When to choose grouneded Considering that there are various qualitative techniques available theory method, page 53 as possible choices for economic and management researchers to Practical examples, page 58 select for their studies, it is, therefore, necessary to research the di\ufb00erences among these choices. Therefore, this chapter needs to provide methodological comparisons among various qualitative techniques used in economic and management research before discussing when to choose grounded theory. The chapter aims to guide students and researchers on when to choose grounded theory study as the suitable qualitative method. It will begin with the outline of qualitative turn in economic and management research. The \ufb01rst section will introduce various qualitative methods commonly used by researchers in these disciplines. Then the next section will outline three classifying criteria","38 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research as the fundamental considerations for method selection, namely the use of theory, investigative focuses, and qualitative outcomes. This section comparatively explain the methodological characteristics of di\ufb00erent qualitative techniques and example studies with details on the method used in practice. The \ufb01nal section will discuss when to choose the grounded theory method considering its speci\ufb01c characteristics according to the three criteria outlined. The objective of this chapter is to critically discuss di\ufb00erent qualitative techniques used in economic and management research. It intends to lay an essential foundation for identifying the distinctive qualities of grounded theory study that make the technique distinctive from other methods to help students and researchers decide when to choose it appropriately. Post-positivist qualitative 2.2 Qualitative Turn in Economics and Management research seeks to Research understand the world objectively while accepting Recall from Chapter 1, although varied, the multiple qualitative subjectivities in human methods share similar characteristics. Concisely reminding, \ufb01rstly, experiences. qualitative methods can be rooted in either post-positivist or anti-positivist paradigms; they accept subjective meanings embedded in the social realities. In other words, all qualitative methods acknowledge subjectivity and imperfect objectivity in the research attempt to approach the social implications. Secondly, they consider multiple realities instead of a solid cause-and-e\ufb00ect explanation of social inquiries. Thirdly, they believe in interpretive epistemological tradition, meaning inductive interpretation is the fundamental approach to \ufb01nding answers to the inquired problems. For this reason, qualitative methods share similar induction of the process as presented in Figure 2.1. Fourthly, they adopt an inductive reasoning approach in the research procedure. Finally, they believe in the in\ufb02uence of context, regardless of the speci\ufb01c objective of di\ufb00erent methods aiming at either objective or subjective meanings of the studied phenomenon. Taking into account the essential characteristics of qualitative research, this section will explain various qualitative techniques commonly used in economic and management research. The classi\ufb01cation of qualitative strategies is always complex and in multiple presentations across di\ufb00erent textbooks (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Miles et al., 2014). Often, they are classi\ufb01ed in speci\ufb01c disciplinary considerations. In economic and management studies, three classifying criteria are recognizable: di\ufb00erent procedures for the use of related theories (Creswell and Creswell, 2017), di\ufb00erent investigative focus (Partington, 2002), and di\ufb00erent participation of the researcher and the context of happenings being studied (Symon and Cassell, 2012).","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 39 Figure 2.1: Comparison of Basic Patterns of Deduction and Induction in Research Source: Based on Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107 and Alecchi (2016, p.26). Explanation: Two basic approaches to social research reasoning are inductive and deductive. Qualitative research often adopts the former, inductive, also known as the theory-building process aiming at constructing a theory from the data. The latter is deductive, also known as the theory-testing process aiming at theory veri\ufb01cation, either as accepted or rejected, using the research data from the \ufb01eldwork. Di\ufb00erent techniques for conducting qualitative research are Post-positivist qualitative related to diverse philosophical variations, historical debates, and research seeks to criticisms about the most appropriate philosophical beliefs in which understand the world the method is rooted (Symon and Cassell, 2012). Regarding objectively while accepting ontological research positions, some believe that qualitative studies the subjective elements of are rooted in the anti-positivist tradition (Corbetta, 2011; Von Wright, social reality and human 1993), while some assert it can be embedded in either post-positivism experiences. or anti-positivism (Glaser, 1978; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin and Strauss, Anti-positivist qualitative 2015). Considering these arguments, however, the employment of research seeks to qualitative studies in economics and management supports the latter; understand the world qualitative researchers in these \ufb01elds practically undertake both subjectively. traditions. Qualitative researchers taking a post-positivist position use the method to interpret the objective implications of the studied phenomenon (Goulding, 2002; Piore, 2006). They approach the \ufb01ndings using research designs that allow systematic and analytic qualitative data collection and analysis (Glaser, 1978; Charmaz, 2014). Alternatively, those who root their studies in the anti-positivist tradition employ qualitative methods in search of subjective interpretation to explain the inquired economic and management problems (Lee and Cronin, 2016; Hill and Meagher, 1999). Despite the di\ufb00erent perspectives, researchers taking either post-positivist or anti-positivist stances acknowledge the involvement of subjective values; these researchers realize that perfect objectivity is impossible. Hence, concerning the recognition of di\ufb00erent subjective","40 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research beliefs and values across di\ufb00erent people and social contexts, perfect repeatability in qualitative social research is impossible (Stake, 2013). Nonetheless, the involvement of unnecessary biases is claimed to be reduced to the minimum using speci\ufb01c techniques such as analytic comparisons across related literature and data triangulation (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Various arguments and debates result in di\ufb00erent designs adopted by qualitative researchers across disciplines. In economic and management sciences, six qualitative methods are often employed, including phenomenology, ethnography, narrative study, case study, action research, and grounded theory (Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107 and Alecchi, 2016; Coast, 2017; Lee and Cronin, 2016). An introduction to the six methods commonly used in economic and management research is provided next. Phenomenology focuses on 2.2.1 Phenomenology studying human experiences. The term phenomenology is variously used in qualitative research design. On the one hand, phenomenology is known as one of the interpretive epistemological traditions of social research1. On the other hand, it is regarded as a type of qualitative research method. Phenomenology, as a research method, focuses on studying human experiences. The term is used as both a philosophy and a methodology (Goulding, 2002). When used as a qualitative research design, phenomenology aims to understand complex issues of people\u2019s experiences in the social world as they live by studying their social actions. Phenomenology is often used in qualitative economic and management research to examine the implicit meanings of human experiences and behaviors in the inquired phenomenon or social settings being studied. The result of phenomenology is a holistic presentation of experiential descriptions based on the experiences of both the researchers and those observed. The investigative focus of phenomenology is, therefore, experience-oriented. The objective of research choosing this method is usually trying to approach the experiential descriptions of the inquired phenomenon. For instance, as used in economics research, it allows the researcher to understand the essence of individuals experiencing in a particular situation concerning what can be theoretically explained as their actions and participations (Oast and De Allegri, 2018). 1As explained previously in Chapter 1, speci\ufb01cally see page 11, phenomenology, as an epistemological tradition, believes that social reality is the understanding of the nature of human experiences and events as they are directly and immediately experienced.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 41 2.2.2 Ethnography Ethnography focuses on cultural studies. Ethnography focuses on cultural studies. The method comes from anthropology and sociology designed for social inquires aiming at examining behaviors, actions, interactions, and experiences of an intact cultural group (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), ethnography research focuses on human society and culture; it aims to understand not only the interaction of individuals being studied but also how they interact with the culture of the societal contexts they live. Thus, the result of ethnography is usually cultural description. The method is often adopted in economic and management research with a cultural focus on the inquired settings, such as organizations, communities, regions, or countries (Lee and Cronin, 2016; Currall and Towler, 2003). When ethnography is used in economic and management research, it usually helps examine actions and interactions of humans, as the actors, in the inquired settings, such as organizations, communities, regions, or countries. Ethnographic research usually involves long-term observations. Its research outcomes is cultural oriented often include cultural descriptions of those being observed. 2.2.3 Narrative Study Narrative study aims to explore subjective The narrative study is a traditional research method in psychology perceptions in human with the primary aim of exploring subjective perceptions in human experiences. experiences. Its epistemological heritage is rooted in interpretivism, speci\ufb01cally in hermeneutic tradition, which focuses on the importance of \u201clistening to voices of experiences as expressed in narrations\u201d (Wertz et al., 2011, p.63). Considering its potency of perceptive exploration, many economic and management researchers employ the technique to study issues relating to mental sets of people, such as motivations, needs and expectations, in economic and management problems. The investigative procedure involves interpretations of individuals\u2019 perceptions concerning the research inquiry of human \ufb01rsthand experiences. Narrative researchers believe in constructing the understanding of human perceptions upon classi\ufb01cation, categorization, conceptualization and theory building in meaningful ways. The investigative procedure of narrative study is perception-oriented, seeking to deliver a perceptive description of those being studied as the outcomes. However, the narrative approach is often criticized, especially in empirical economics work, for lack of plausibility in providing a theoretical explanation. Hence, the method is often used in an ancillary role in quantitative-dominated research, which utilizes econometrics or statistical inference from data analysis (Dumez and Jeunema\u00eetre, 2005).","42 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case study constructs 2.2.4 Case study elements of the investigation using a Case study is a research design that essentially requires a bounded brounded system, or the system, which is a distinctive feature that makes a case study di\ufb00erent case\u2019s boundary. from other research methods. Instead of using the focus of the study to de\ufb01ne the unit of analysis, case study research uses a bounded system for de\ufb01ning (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The bounded systems are the investigative boundary, or a fence (Stake, 2013), of a selected case, meaning that the observed phenomenon is intrinsically bounded and studied. Considering how the case study method is de\ufb01ned, the unit of analysis of a case study can be anything. For example, it can be an organization, a group of people, a work process, work experiences or even a single person, as long as the researcher de\ufb01nes what is intrinsically interesting to be investigated. Therefore, the case study method is distinct from other qualitative techniques concerning its requirement for a case\u2019s bounded system in the design. Its investigative focus, as a research method, is therefore case-oriented. The expected outcomes are an explanation intrinsically bounded within the inquired case setting deriving through contextualizing the case attributes In addition, researchers adopting a cases study need to clarify the investigative propositions of the intrinsic focus of the case. Action research involves 2.2.5 Action Research with the researcher\u2019s participation, or Action research, also known as participatory action research (PAR), intervention, while requires the researcher to intervene in the inquired phenomenon. The observing the phenomenon requirement for the researcher\u2019s intervention makes this method under the study. distinctive from other techniques. According to Nix et al. (2019), action research is action orientated, participatory, and systemic in its approach; it can be qualitative or quantitative or integrate both research strategies. The method begins with developing a conceptual framework to outline a set-up situation and the role of researchers intervening in it, designed under the aims of the investigation (Chevalier and Buckles, 2019). The investigative focus of action research is, therefore, action-oriented. The study results often involved the intervening insightful explanation derived as the researcher\u2019s making sense of the studied settings. For example, when used in organizational management research, the research outcomes are produced based on the researcher\u2019s involvement with the organization\u2019s members. This involvement and the member\u2019s observed actions are based on the set-up of intervened setting given the predetermined investigative matter.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 43 2.2.6 Grounded Theory Grounded theory research employs the scienti\ufb01c logic Grounded theory was \ufb01rstly introduced in the 1960s in a book by of systematic and logical sociologists Glaser and Strauss in 1967, the Discover of Grounded analysis in qualitative Theory. The method aims to develop a theory to emerge from or be research. grounded in the data using systematic, inductive, iterative, and comparative data to result in theory construction (Wertz et al., 2011). Grounded theory is distinctive from other qualitative methods concerning the continuous interplay of the data collection and analysis processes, comprising techniques speci\ufb01c to the method known as theoretical sampling and constant comparisons (Glaser, 1978). This method for developing theory focuses on systemically gathered and analyzed data. Hence, economic and management researchers use grounded theory to construct an emerging theoretical explanation of derived from the research data using its transparency and explicit strategies of the analysis procedure. This method focuses on emerging theory development from the research data. It is therefore recognized as a variable-oriented investigation aiming at \ufb01nding a causal explanation of the inquired problems. This method is suitable for studies aiming to theoretically explain the relationships of social elements, so-called variables, of the human or situation under the study (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). 2.3 Fundamental Considerations for Method Selection Similar to selecting a research approach\u2014qualitative, quantitative, or mix-methods\u2014choosing an appropriate qualitative method is a time-consuming, re\ufb02ective process. It requires a self-evaluation of convictions, beliefs, and interests. It entails being open and truthful about personal views, the knowledge, and the perception of potential capacity for knowledge. It also calls for dedication to the process after a choice has been made. Methods are subjective since di\ufb00erent people have various ways of thinking and arriving at the truth. The \ufb01t between the method and the individual, between their working style, who they are, and how they think, is thus rarely considered when choosing an appropriate approach. This section will outline four fundamental considerations for method selection concerning the investigative focus, the interpretive perspective, the use of theory, and the qualitative outcome. 2.3.1 Investigative Focuses The \ufb01rst critical considerate aspect when choosing a suitable qualitative method is an investigative focus. Considering the variation of techniques, investigative focuses in qualitative studies vary depending on the type of research design chosen for the study.","44 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Given the six common appraoches as explained previously, there are six qualitative investigative focuses as outlined in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Di\ufb00erent Investigative Focuses in Qualitative Research Source: the author. Explanation: The six commonly used qualitative methods have di\ufb00erent investigative focuses. Researchers need to clarify their research focus as they decide on the most appropriate method. Emic: the emic perspective 2.3.2 Interpretive Perspectives is the insider\u2019s viewpoint. The researchers share their When choosing a good qualitative method for social research, it is also values in the interpretation important to think about the researcher\u2019s interpretive perspective, or of social meanings. the di\ufb00erent ways of looking at the thing being studied.The research Etic: the etic perspective is must either choose emic or etic views. That is, the researcher may the outsider\u2019s viewpoint. make sense of those being studied from the insider\u2019s views (emic) or The researchers attempt to the outsider\u2019s views (etic). According to Currall and Towler (2003), the exclude their values from positivist research approaches that believe that the social world exists the interpretation of social independently of the researcher prefer the etic view. In this regard, it meanings. is asserted that the etic approach is suitable for quantitative methods that try to analyze raw data rather than in\ufb02uence the meaning of the human experience that the data is derived from. Inversely, as explained by Merriam and Tisdell (2015), the emic view is preferred by qualitative researchers who want to understand the people or social interactions they are researching by sharing their values in an e\ufb00ort to understand them. However, it is not necessary that qualitative researchers interpret the meaning of the social world with the emic view. As asserted by Miles et al. (2014), the etic view can be used by qualitative researchers whose research method is variable-oriented. For these studies, the production of results is tied to an analytic interpretive purpose \u2018to illuminate the constant, in\ufb02uential, determining factors shaping the course of events\u2019 (Miles et al., 2014, p.324). The etic view is therefore not necessarily always derived from the positivist tradition.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 45 Furthermore, despite the fact that the emic view is recognized by Grounded theorists use the some scholars, e.g. Merriam and Tisdell (2015), as suitable for etic view in conducting the qualitative social inquiries, Kincheloe and McLaren (2011) point out study. that the tradition is often blamed for lessening the reliability of the study. This criticism concerns the researcher\u2019s biographical experience being blended with the information self-reported by the subjects observed. For this reason, inter-researcher reliability is di\ufb03cult to achieve; they claim that di\ufb00erent researchers have di\ufb00erent accumulated life experiences that permeate their understanding of the world. Accordingly, it is of concern to the researcher that the lower inter-researcher reliability could lessen the philosophical value of the research. Therefore, to choose an appropriate qualitative method, the researcher must take into consideration both the bene\ufb01ts and the criticisms of the two distinct views. While some methodological traditions, such as phenomenology and narrative study, speci\ufb01cally prefer the researcher to adopt the emic tradition, other methods, such as ethnography and participatory action research, require both emic and etic views, considering the required participation of the researcher in the studied phenomenon Goulding (2002). For the grounded theory method, which focuses on value-oriented procedures, the etic viewpoint is speci\ufb01cally the choice (Miles et al., 2014, p.324). Other methods, such as a case study, can be more \ufb02exible; either emic or etic perspectives, or a combination of both perspectives, are allowed depending on the research objectives and investigative boundaries. 2.3.3 The Use of Theory According to Hill and Meagher (1999), the uses of theories and Two levels for using literature in a particular qualitative research project can be at two theories in qualitative levels, as follows: research: project framing and internal to the project. 1. At the project framing level: researchers can use related theories and literature to identify debates and available knowledge in the speci\ufb01c areas of interest they intend to research. Then, based on the literature review, they need to clarify how the proposed projects can contribute to the knowledge in the \ufb01eld. 2. As internal to the project: the identi\ufb01ed variables in those related theories and literature are used through the following research processes, including the data collection, data analysis and discussions of the research outcomes. Throughout these activities, the relevant theories and literature involve the researchers\u2019 choices of data classi\ufb01cations, orders, categories","46 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research and analytic strategies for organizing their collected data and other research materials. Three ways to use theory in A typical debate among social researchers concerning the use of qualitative research: theory in qualitative analysis is whether it should verify or develop 1. Theory-testing theory. In other words, it is essential to design whether the theory 2. Theory-building should be used in the deductive or inductive modes. Recall from 3. Iterative process. Chapter 1, qualitative research is predominantly recognized as an inductive reasoning design concerning the richness and complex characteristics of qualitative data. These characteristics are claimed to be challenging to use the uniform analytical, inductive approach preferred by quantitative methods. However, Taylor et al. (2015) suggest that the choice should not be so starkly, meaning choosing how to utilize existing theories in qualitative research can be \ufb02exible. They emphasize that the qualitative research process is not necessarily limited to inductive practice. Instead, the deductive design can be included in the process, depending on the research aims. Agreeing with Taylor et al. (2015), Hill and Meagher (1999) assert that qualitative research can use theory for designing a hypothesis-testing procedure or a story-telling method with the aim of theory construction. Similarly, Creswell and Creswell (2017) points out variation in theory use in qualitative research, including the use at the beginning to form a conceptual framework, throughout the analysis process to provide the theoretical lens, or developed at the end point as the research outcome. Hence, considering the multiple ways for qualitative researchers to design how theory is used in their studies, qualitative methods can be classi\ufb01ed into three types, as outlined in Figure 2.3 below: theory-testing research, theory-building research and iterative research, which allows the back-and-forth between inductive and deductive processes in one study. Figure 2.3: Three Alternatives for Using Theory in Qualitative Research Source: the author. Discussions on how di\ufb00erent qualitative methods use theory are discussed next.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 47 Theory-Testing Qualitative Research Process Theory-testing research uses deductive reasoning. It is broadly accepted that the inductive process is predominant in Deductive reasoning is qualitative research because, often, researchers choose a qualitative often seen in case studies study concerning the lack of existing theory to adequality explains a and action research, as the studied phenomenon (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Even in economics, two approaches require which Hill and Meagher (1999) claims to be primarily dominated by predominant variables to qualitative methods with a preference for scienti\ufb01c, mathematical form the investigative models and statistics, the inductive process can also become a boundaries of participatory predominant method in speci\ufb01c economic inquiries. The limitation of conditions as their using a deductive approach is that economic science essentially investigation basis. concerns people, whose rich details of their lives and beings cannot Two parts of theory-testing always be captured or communicated in a numerical framework (Hill qualitative research are the and Meagher, 1999). Therefore, the choice of qualitative research initial deductive process usually aims at exploratory explanation derived through inductive and indictive domination. reasoning approaches. Despite the predominant inductive design there are two qualitative methods, case study and action research, allow the inclusion of deductive, or theory-testing, techniques to play a leading role in qualitative research. When conducted qualitatively, the two methods similarly use theory from the beginning to form a conceptual framework \ufb01lled with hypothetical variables of related discipline-speci\ufb01c theories. This part is recognized as the inductive phase. The essence of this procedure is to help inform the researcher about what is learnt deductively in the knowledge \ufb01eld (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Although the theory is not tested as it might be in typical experiment research, this characterized theory-testing phase help inform what theoretical aspects should be included in the investigation and what should not. Later, given the detailing and richness of the collected qualitative data guided by the pre-identi\ufb01ed framework, consequent testing and logically comparisons between the theory and the data can be made. The outcome of this inductive technique is known as \\\"plausible rival hypotheses\\\" (Yin, 2017). They can be used to verify what existing theories can adequately explain the studied case or situation and what cannot. Then, the inductive procedure can continue concerning the exploration derived from what is being investigated. Accordingly, discussions on the results of case studies and action research outcomes usually consist of two essential parts. First, the initial deductive process which concerns the theory-testing procedure, or the veri\ufb01cation of the chosen existing theories. Another part concerns the inductive domination of choosing the qualitative method aiming at the critical exploration, of those being studied, details below.","48 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 1. Initial Deductive Process Firstly, discussions concerning the theory-testing, or deductive, process focus on verifying existing theories regarding what part of the studied case (in the case study) or situation (in action research) can adequately be explained by the current theories and what cannot. 2. Inductive Domination Secondly, given the predominant inductive of the chosen qualitative method design, the researcher can continue with the inductive activities towards theory building from observations and intuitive understanding gathered from the qualitative data. Thus, the research outcomes of theory-testing qualitative research often cover both theoretical veri\ufb01cation and exploratory explanation of the inquired case or situation.2 Theory-building research Theory-Building Qualitative Research Process uses inductive reasoning. Inductive research, or theory-building study, has become a suitable alternative for particular economic and management inquiries in which the deductive approach and the use of the theory-testing method are considered not suitable (Coast, 2017; Jemna, 2016). As discussed in the previous section, theories play signi\ufb01cant roles in deductive research as they serve the researcher with various functional elements, including a series of variables and de\ufb01nitions, assumptions, hypotheses, and testing techniques (Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107 and Alecchi, 2016). In deductive research, decent theories serve the research design with accurate and useful predictions, leading to logical \ufb01ndings and critical discussions of the answers to the research question. However, unlike scienti\ufb01c research or physical sciences, economic and management sciences, assessing a particular theory\u2019s validity in these subject areas is critically di\ufb03cult, considering their involvement with people and their lives. Moreover, human experiences, actions, and interactions within the social world are subjectively di\ufb00erent by nature, making the validity of existing theories even more challenging. Over time, many economic and management theories have failed in their accuracy and real-world predictions of practical concepts concerning, for example, the major economic and \ufb01nancial crises in reality. 2See Case 2.1, \\\"Adaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: an Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand\\\" by Polhong et al. (2022), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 49 Various challenges of employing inductive research are raised Qualitative research concerning the \ufb02exibility, variety, and unstandardized of the projects do not follow the qualitative techniques themselves. For instance, as pointed out by Hill logic of equal probability of and Meagher (1999), qualitative research projects do not follow the selection criteria, often logic of equal probability of selection criteria, often adopted by most adopted by most economic economic research. Moreover, the criteria for selecting the key research. informants to be the data source used in embarking on the inductive Two types of theories result processes can also be diverse; this diversity makes the traditional from theory-building research assessment, such as replicability and generalizability, qualitative research: questionable. Hence, a developed theoretical explanation, which is the substantive and formal outcome of theory-building research, faces crucial criticism for its theories. validity, veri\ufb01ability and re\ufb02exivity. Concerning the criticisms of inductive qualitative research, however, the theory development resulting from this research type does not originally deliberate to favor the traditional scienti\ufb01c research assessment criteria rooted in the positivist paradigm. Instead, according to Yin (2017), it should be used on the basis for analytic generalization, which is a di\ufb00erent mean from typical scienti\ufb01c generalization. Creswell and Creswell (2017) point out that the function of theory is to provide a broad explanation. For the theory derived at the endpoint of inductive research, this function, also known as theory generalizations, can be varied concerning the variation of processes di\ufb00erent researchers undertake for their speci\ufb01c studied contexts and research aims. Hence, the logic of analytic generalization varies among di\ufb00erent qualitative methods. It is also known in di\ufb00erent terminologies such as pattern theories (Guba and Lincoln, 2017) and propositional generalization (Stake, 2013). Inductive design can be employed in all types of qualitative methods, considering it is the predominant approach to qualitative research. Therefore, research can adopt the inductive approach in those commonly used qualitative economic and management research methods: phenomenology, ethnography, case study, action research, and grounded theory. Theories developed using qualitative research are classi\ufb01ed into two types namely substantive and formal theories. 1. Substantive theory A substantive theory is a lower level theory constructed as a hypothetical explanation applicable to speci\ufb01c research settings such as particular situations, cases, circumstances, or contextual conditions (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The theory-building process involves only a speci\ufb01c settings or informants being studied (Taylor et al., 2015). Thus, comparable characteristics or attributes are necessary for implicating theoretical interests across di\ufb00erent settings.","50 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 2. Formal theory A formal theory, also known as grand theory (Charmaz, 2014; Yin, 2017), is a higher level theory with higher explanatory power across a range of situations. The theory construction usually involves collecting and analyzing data across various realities and settings. The formal theory provides hypothetical variables in an integrative framework with a higher level of generalizability. Despite using the inductive process, qualitative research design in economic and management sciences needs to connect to relevant theories of the discipline-speci\ufb01c areas (Oast and De Allegri, 2018; Symon and Cassell, 2012). Even though the primary purpose of using qualitative techniques in exploration, especially in the areas in which deductive research is not suitable, outcomes of the study still need to be located within the knowledge in the \ufb01elds. That is, the explorations will eventually join the knowledge community. Intellectual connections are, therefore, necessary. Such links can be made as qualitative researchers identify investigative aspects, themes, or data analysis attributes.3 Iterative research is an Iterative Research Process interpaly of deductive and inductive reasoning The third way to use theory in qualitative research is an iterative appraoches. approach. Figure 2.4 outlines the basic iterative theory-building process. Iterative process is an interplay theory-building procedure between the traditional inductive and deductive approaches. The theory-building procedure is commonly used in two qualitative data analysis techniques: hermeneutics and grounded theory analysis. The di\ufb00erence is that hermeneutic procedure aims at interpreting texts, while grounded theory focuses on emerging theory development (Charmaz, 2014). Nevertheless, both are recognized as a synthesis and systematic procedure. Hermeneutics economic and management research can adopt the traditional steps, known as the hermeneutic circle, as its analysis technique (Tomkins and Eatough, 2018). The circle consists of formal steps for systematically interpreting texts and the context of the happenings being studied. According to Bailesteanu (2009), these steps start with the researcher gathering the premise of knowledge 3See Case 2.2, \\\"Strategies of Logistics Cost Management for Rice Exports by Sea Transportation to the International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters\\\" by Noisopha and Wangkananoni (2022), and Case 2.3, \\\"Doing \u2018Qualitative Research\u2019 in Economics: Two Examples and Some Re\ufb02ections\\\" by Hill and Meagher (1999), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 51 Figure 2.4: The Basic Iterative Theory-Building Process Source: Based on Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107 and Alecchi (2016, p.26). Explanation: An iterative process is a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning approaches. Often, it requires the researcher to start with the inductive approach to develop initial conceptions derived from the data. Then, the developed theory will be used as the basis to propose a set of hypotheses requiring further data collection from within the designated investigative areas to verify the theory. relativity, researching causal relations, forming the explanation and Hermeneutics and prediction, and, \ufb01nally, rationally arguing the means of the studied grounded theory studies are texts to persuade others for the correctness of the interpretation. the two common methods using the iterative process. The iterative steps of the hermeneutic practice vary considerably concerning the signi\ufb01cant in\ufb02uences of the researcher as the main instrument for interpretation. The hermeneutic interpretation is signi\ufb01cantly in\ufb02uenced by self-re\ufb02ective, iterative, and ongoing processes of the researcher\u2019s sense-making to develop insights into how text is understood, given the contexts of the studied phenomenon (Wertz et al., 2011). Grounded Theory Study is another iterative procedure. This qualitative method focuses on the operation of interconnecting data collection, data analysis, and the eventual outcomes. Thus, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p.4) sees it as an \u201coperationalizing methodology\u201d in which the research procedures start with the data collection and then process it through the iterative processes for conceptualizing the emerging concepts into a body of theory. The grounded theory method requires the researcher to simultaneously employs three techniques for investigating a social inquiry of induction, deduction, and theory veri\ufb01cation (Schwandt, 2014). Thus, the data collection and analysis are conducted simultaneously and iteratively, known as the theoretical sampling process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Using the iterative approach,","52 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research grounded theory researchers attempts to codify and systematize the traditional implicit practice of qualitative data analysis into producing explicit theoretical statements. They are fundamentally concerned with open-endedness and iterative data processing for theory development.4 Six characterized 2.3.4 Qualitative Outcomes qualitative outcomes: 1. Experiencial description Qualitative research has fundamental approaches to qualitative data 2. Culterual desctiption analysis, regardless of the speci\ufb01c choice of chosen qualitative 3. Perceptive description technique. The analysis procedure leading to the production of the 4. Bounded intrinsic ultimate outcome usually performs coding, categorizing, explanation conceptualizing and producing descriptive or explanative rationales 5. Intervening insightful (Miles et al., 2014). explanation 6. Emerging causual Despite the similarities in the data analysis approaches, the eventual explanation. outcome is an essential feature that makes one qualitative method di\ufb00er from the others. Some processes mainly aim at descriptive or story- telling results, while some expect to provide causal explanations with theoretical interests. Among those qualitative methods often used by economic and management research, the results of phenomenology, ethnology, and narrative study are recognized as a type of rich descriptive outcomes. Phenomenology typically delivers experiential descriptions and human interactions within a speci\ufb01c inquired phenomenon. Ethnography constructs a cultural description of the human experiences in the inquired settings. Finally, narrative study often presents the perceptive descriptions of the studied individuals. For those expecting to provide causal explanations with theoretical interests, their outcomes can be categorized into two types: with or without any leading theoretical concepts. The data analysis of case studies and action research often begins with pre-identi\ufb01ed concepts from the preliminary literature review. Their investigative designs of study propositions leading to expected outcomes are often associated with the knowledge relativity within the speci\ufb01c discipline. Another method to deliver a causal explanation as an outcome is the grounded theory method. However, unlike the other two, grounded theory prefers to minimize the use of existing theories in guiding the production of outcomes. It usually uses them as a general guide for the initial start to de\ufb01ne appropriate sources of research data. Once started, the data will guide further multiple data collection and analysis of the theoretical sampling technique. Then the research results will be 4See Case 2.4, \\\"Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project\\\", by Hill and Meagher (1999), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 53 formed grounded in the theoretical insights of the data, known as an emerging theory or an emerging causal explanation. Table 2.1 is the characterization of expected outcome to be derived from using di\ufb00erent qualitative techniques. Table 2.1: Di\ufb00erent Approaches to Qualitative Research and the Outcomes Source: the author. 2.4 When to Choose Grounded Theory Method Based on the discussions of di\ufb00erent qualitative techniques from the previous section, there are three critical considerations regarding when to speci\ufb01cally choose a grounded theory study. 2.4.1 To Have Variable-Oriented Investigative Focus The second reason involves the variable-oriented investigative focus of grounded theory. Despite the possibility and \ufb02exibility of mixing qualitative designs, di\ufb00erent methods have di\ufb00erent investigative focuses. To remind, the di\ufb00erent focuses are based on di\ufb00erent philosophical orientations ranging from experience (phenomenology), culture (ethnography), perception (narrative study), speci\ufb01c case (case study), participatory action (action research) and variable-oriented (grounded theory). The speci\ufb01c orientation makes each method distinct form the others. Therefore, grounded theory is recommended as a suitable choice when theoretical interests are the central focus of the study. This method allows the researcher to focus on identifying variables and examining their theoretical relationships. 2.4.2 To Use an Etic Perspective A grounded theory study is recommended for qualitative research in which the researcher decides to interpret the social meanings from the outsider\u2019s viewpoint, or the etic. In terms of selecting an etic point of view, the researcher should not rely on any existing theories or","54 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research methodological tools other than the subjective meaning of action of the individuals or social interactions under investigation and the contextual conditions. Research choosing the etic view usually prefers to minimize the researcher\u2019s in\ufb02uence, Gray (2014) asserts that it is best to allow phenomena to speak for themselves, unadulterated by the researcher\u2019s preconceptions. Choosing a grounded study as an appropriate method is consistent with the decision to investigate the case from an etic perspective.This viewpoint, as Miles et al. (2014) suggest, is appropriate for variable-oriented studies in which relationships of social elements (so-called variables) are the focus of social interpretation. 2.4.3 To Use Iterative Theoretical Sampling Process Similar to other exploratory qualitative techniques, this method is recognized as a theory-building process. However, the methodological design which makes this method distinctive is its iterative theoretical sampling process. This process allows multiple interplays between the data collection and analysis practices throughout the study until the researcher develops the theory. Therefore, one of the key reason for choosing grounded theory is the researcher appreciate the advantage of the iterative theoretical sampling process of this method. 2.4.4 To Explore Emerging Causal Explanation as the Outcome Finally, the grounded theory selection is associated with its outcome of delivering a theory emerging from the data. The method assists the study in exploring the emerging causal explanation of the studied phenomenon in a broad range for being characterized as the unit of analysis, such as the inquired settings, individuals\u2019 experiences, organizations, and social happenings. Also, considering the two types of theory to possible result from theory-building research, the outcome of grounded theory research can be either substantive or formal, depending on the scope of inquiry the study proposes to investigate. This section has provided further details on the seasons for explicitly choosing this method concerning the methodological concentrations of using iterative reasoning and research design, its variable-oriented, and the expected outcome in the form of emerging causal explanation.5 See Figure 2.5. 5See Case 2.5, \\\"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\\\" by Chanthes (2021), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 55 Figure 2.5: Key Characteristics of Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. Explanation: Choosing grounded theory as an appropriate method comprises eight fundamental reasons. The \ufb01rst \ufb01ve are the same as the selection of the qualitative approach. The latter four reasons help to emphasize the speci\ufb01c choice of the grounded theory method. Researchers should speci\ufb01cally select this method when they seek for iterative research approach with variable-oriented as the investigative focus using the etic view and intend to deliver emerging causal explanation to the inquiry as the research outcome. 2.5 Flexible Qualitative Designs In practice, qualitative research design can be very \ufb02exible. It can also be a mixture of di\ufb00erent methodological designs from various methods. For instance, a narrative study technique can be used in an ethnographic study to explore people\u2019s perceptions regarding various economic issues.6 As another example, a research project can use a bounded system design of the case study technique to clarify the scope of the investigation and then use the experience-oriented focus of the phenomenology method to investigate the experiences and interactions of the informants and the settings of the study.7 The \ufb02exible qualitative research designs also apply to grounded theory selection, depending on research questions, aims, and 6See Case 2.6, \\\"Not \u2018My Economy\u2019: A Political Ethnographic Study of Interest in the Economy\\\" by Killick (2021), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example. 7See Case 2.7, \\\"A Phenomenological Case Study: Strategy Development in Small and Medium Retail Enterprises in Greece during Recession\\\" by Theodoridis (2014), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","56 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research objectives. For example, in a case study, which clari\ufb01es the bounded system of the case to be investigated, a grounded theory can be chosen for the analysis procedure to help construct an emerging theoretical explanation for the selected case.8 2.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter started with revisiting qualitative turn in economic and management research. It introduced various qualitative research methods often employed in economic and management research, including phenomenology, ethnography, narrative study, case study, action research, and grounded theory. Although qualitative research is inductive-dominant, the chapter has explained that the details of its investigative procedure are not limited to inductive. Instead, it is possible to include inductive, deductive, and iterative practices. The third procedure is the interplay between the two former ways of using theory in qualitative studies. The objective of this chapter is to guide students and researchers on the method consideration of when to choose grounded theory as a suitable method for their proposed research. Therefore, it was necessary that the chapter critically compared the various ways concerning three essential aspects of methodological design: the use of theory, the investigative focus, and the expected outcome of each. As a result, the thorough comparisons throughout the chapter suggested four criteria for choosing a grounded theory study as follows: 1. When the investigation is variable-oriented; and 2. When the researcher chooses the etic tradition as the interpretive perspective; 3. When the study requires the advantage of using an iterative research process; 4. When it aims at exploring emerging causal explanation as the research outcome. The four criteria help indicate that grounded theory study is an iterative process with a dominant inductive procedure. Thus, it is recognized as a theory-building method of variable-oriented with the objective of delivering an outcome of an emerging theory grounded in the research data. 8See Case 2.8, \\\"Digital Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Become a Challenge? by Ivanov (2020), and Case 2.9, \\\"Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: A Comparative Study\\\" Abdel-Fattah (2015), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as two practical examples.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 57 The next chapter will explain three types of grounded theory research. Key Terms Action research, 42 Iterative process, 50 Theory-testing, 47 Ethnography, 41 Narrative study, 41 Theory-building, 48 Formal theory, 136 Phenomenology, 40 Grounded theory, 43 Substantive theory, 136 2.7 Exercises 1. Explain the di\ufb00erence between substantive and formal theories. 2. Explain the theoretical sampling technique of the grounded theory method. Then discuss how it is di\ufb00erent from the procedure of other qualitative methods. 3. Critically review the research papers used as examples for this chapter, see the references below, then discuss each paper as follows: \u2022 The use of theory; \u2022 The investigative focus; \u2022 The types of research outcomes, either descriptive or theoretical explanation; \u2022 Discuss the research process: does it use an inductive, deductive, combination of both or an iterative research process? 4. Critically review the example research papers again. Which article presents grounded theory research? Do you agree with the selection of grounded theory for the research it presents? Discuss. 5. Propose possible research questions to require a qualitative research technique, but a grounded theory study may not be suitable. Then explain why?","58 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Appendix: Practical Examples Case 2.1: Theory-Testing in Case 2.1: Theory-Testing in a Qualitative Research a Qualitative Research Case 2.1 is a practical example of a theory-testing qualitative \\\"Adaptation Strategies to research. Polhong et al. (2022) employed a qualitative case Increase Business study method to examine the adaptation of strategies to Competitiveness in the increase business competitiveness in the digital era. Their Digital Era: an Empirical study was intrinsically interested in how local freight \ufb01rms Study of Local Freight Firms in a border province in the Northeast region of Thailand in Thailand\\\" adopted digitalization to increase business competitiveness and economic values, considering that logistics was one of the targeted industries of Thailand 4.0, the national economic development concept. Thus, the unit of analysis was the business adaptation of business \ufb01rms selected for the case. The case\u2019s bounded system was constructed following the logistic management theory by Ballou (2004) to form three investigative aspects of inventory, transport, and location strategies. These propositions were theoretically claimed to be the three fundamental areas for business development of the logistics industry. In addition to the theory-testing procedure, the qualitative method, using qualitative content analysis, allowed the discovery of other elements of business development and competitiveness speci\ufb01c to the selected region of the study. As a result, in addition to critically verifying the use of existing theories to explain the chosen case from Thailand, the \ufb01ndings from the initial deductive stage also delivered outcomes outside of the predetermined conception of the case study\u2019s boundary. This additional \ufb01ndings was exploratory and relevant to the speci\ufb01c characteristics of the studied case as follows: the importance of national policy developed using the industry 4.0 notion; the in\ufb02uence of traditional family business management; the locational advantage of international infrastructure; and the management of human resources providing the context of a developing country. The study eventually proposed a theoretical concept for adopting digitalization to promote the business competitiveness of regional local family fright \ufb01rms in developing systems.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 59 Case 2.2: A Theory-Building Economic Research Case 2.2: Theory-Building Case 2.2 is a practical example of theory-building economic Economic Research from research from Thailand. Thailand Strategies of Logistics Cost Noisopha and Wangkananoni (2022) used the grounded Management for Rice theory method to develop a model to explain the logistics cost Exports by Sea management strategies for large Thai exporters\u2019 rice exports by Transportation to the sea transportation to the international market. International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters\\\" The researcher employed a qualitative method, including document analysis, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions as the data collection tools. The \ufb01ndings, or the developed model of cost strategies, showed the two ways of logistics cost structure before rice exports by sea. One was the cost of loading the rice onto large ships, and the other was the cost of the containers. In the model, they outlined the di\ufb00erent activities, procedures and costs relevant to these two cost structure components. The researcher recognized the developed model as a theoretical model of the logistics cost structure. Therefore, they asserted this exploratory discovery as contributing to the knowledge expected to help enhance the logistics cost management in the rice exporting industry by importing packaging from abroad, where the cost was lower than the domestic suppliers. Also, they suggested changing the mode of transporting containers from using a truck to water transportation to using container vessels to reduce costs. These suggestions were expected to help enhance the competitiveness of Thai rice exporters.","60 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.3: Theory-Building Case 2.3: A Theory-Building Economic Research Economic Research Case 2.3 is another practical example of a theory-building \\\"Doing \u2018Qualitative Research\u2019 economic research. Hill and Meagher (1999), from Australia, in Economics: Two Examples used an inductive qualitative method to conduct research in an and Some Re\ufb02ections\\\" all-women trade union in India named Self Employed Women\u2019s Association (SEWA). The study evaluated the impact of SEWA on the economic and social security of women working in the Indian informal sector. In terms of the epistemological stance, they positioned themselves, the researchers, as an outsider seeking to interpret the social realities of the inquired organization in the selected national settings. For the methodological design, they composed the boundary of their investigation using a case study technique. They used semi- structured interviews and the primary data collection method. The researchers chose the qualitative method concerning its exploratory nature. They considered that related literature and existing theories could not be su\ufb03ciently used to form a theoretical concept to guide the deductive investigation concerning the speci\ufb01c contexts of SEWA, the selected case, and India, the chosen country. Despite the limitation of related literature regarding the speci\ufb01c inquiry made to this particular case, they managed to use existing economic theories in various ways. They used theories to guide the construction of the case\u2019s boundary, form the recruiting criteria for key informants, and identify the discoveries by constantly comparing what was known and what was not yet discovered in the knowledge \ufb01eld. The data analysis was carefully located within the logical connections with economic theories and those essential attributes emerging from the case. The process initially bene\ufb01ted the transparency and re\ufb02exivity of the research conduct. They asserted that these systematic and rigorous processes helped increase the credibility of the exploratory theoretical explanation they delivered as the research outcome.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 61 Case 2.4: An Iterative Process of a Grounded Theory Study Case 2.4: Iterative Process Case 2.4 is a practical example of an grounded theory research of a Grounded Theory using an iterative reasoning as the researcher journeyed through Study the research process. \\\"Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Ngadimin et al. (2018) employed a grounded theory study to Well-Being Loss Of measure the opportunity loss of employment in an abandoned Abandoned Shopping Centre shopping center project in Malaysia. The researchers outlined Project\\\" the iterative process of the research as in Case 2.4 Figure. See also Case 2.4 Figure The method used was an interplay between the inductive and deductive approaches starting with constructing the scope of investigation using the theory of employment density. As seen in Case 2.4 Figure, the researchers did not use the theory to guide the analysis of the data. Instead, the theory only helped delineate the research scope. The initial analytic reasoning only primarily started with a ground survey of comparable properties relevant to the inquired issues of the opportunity loss of employment. Then the data collection began, given the identi\ufb01ed scope of the investigation. The researchers gradually constructed the emerging theoretical concepts through data analysis and used them to guide further data collection, data analysis, and hypothesis testing. These multiple repeating processes continued until they were \ufb01nally able to conclude the \ufb01ndings concerning the research questions. This iterative research process eventually delivered a body of knowledge in assessing economic well-being concerning urban unemployment in the inquired setting, the abandonment of the selected shopping center project in Malaysia.","62 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.4 Figure: Illustrating an Iterative Process of a Grounded Theory Study Source: Based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1144). Explanation: Case 2.4 Figure is a practical example of how an economic research illustrated an iteartive process of a grounded theory study. Ngadimin et al. (2018) used grounded theory to examine the opportunity loss of employment due to abandoned shopping center development projects. This \ufb02owchart shows the four steps of the iterative approaches of the grounded theory method. In STEP 1, the researchers surveyed comparable properties and hypothetical situations relevant to the preliminary literature of the theory of employment density. This initial step is inductive and open-ended. Moving on to STEP 2 and STEP 3, the researchers started an initial analysis which resulted in three emerging ideas on speci\ufb01c areas related to their research focus, opportunity loss of employment. Before moving to STEP 4, the researchers revisited the previous steps. The multiple revisits guided the revision of the early hypothesis. Then, once well revised, they moved to STEP 4 for the theory-testing process before \ufb01nalizing the research outcomes.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 63 Case 2.5: Explaining the Grounded Theory Selection Case 2.5: Explaining the Case 2.5 is a managerial economic research clarifying the Grounded Theory Selection grounded theory method selection. Chanthes (2021) chose a \\\"Using a Grounded Theory grounded theory study as an appropriate method for examining Method in an Empirical Case the knowledge-based entrepreneurship development in a Study of Knowledge-Based community enterprise in Thailand. The empirical setting of this Entrepreneurship project was designed as a case study which helped to bound Development in an Organic the scope and propositions of the investigation. Following Rice Farming Community the discussions on the methodological design, Chanthes (2021) Enterprise in Thailand\\\" concluded the selection of the grounded theory method as quoted below [p.76]: \\\"The search for a suitable research method must be clari\ufb01ed regarding the term \u2019grounded theory\u2019 and \u2019case study\u2019 as a research method; this study applied the case study approach to de\ufb01ning the investigative boundary and associated research propositions. Given the case setting, the researcher identi\ufb01ed the unit of analysis as the individual\u2019s experiences involving the enterprise\u2019s knowledge-based entrepreneurship development; the inquiry made into this empirical setting was not a case-oriented seeking to comprehensively understand the organisational behaviour. Instead, when selecting the research method, the researcher looked for a technique that would examine the determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship development in the chosen case. For this reason, the researcher chose the grounded theory approach considering the investigative focus of variable.\\\"","64 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.6: Flexible Case 2.6: Ethnographic Narrative Study Qualitative Research Case 2.6 is a practical example of the \ufb02exible design of Design with Multiple qualitative research combining two techniques of ethnography Techniues, Ethnographic and narrative study in economic inquiry. Narrative Study \\\"Not \u2018My Economy\u2019: A Killick (2021) conducted an empirical economic research Political Ethnographic Study combining these two techniques and delivers the research of Interest in the Economy\\\" outcome as a mixture of perceptive and cultural descriptions of the studied economic system. They undertook an ethnographic study between 2016 and 2018 with residents of an English city to explore people\u2019s perceptions of the economic phenomenon. The researcher interviewed 60 participants, asking about their perceptions of signi\ufb01cant economic issues, such as Brexit, happening during the study period. The research outcome was drawn on empirical evidence focusing on the everyday political economy (EPE) tradition, exploring how people in the studied city perceived politicians\u2019 narratives. The subjective views of the informants were examined to deliver research results consisting of three main themes in elite constructions of the economy, with the critical comparisons between high and low-income participants: people\u2019s interest in the economy, the bedrock of welfare, and the acceptance of elite construction of the economy.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 65 Case 2.7: Phenomenological Case Study Case 2.7: Flexible Case 2.7 is a practical example of a \ufb02exible design of qualitative Qualitative Research study combining case study and phenomenological techniques. Design with Multiple Techniues, Theodoridis (2014) conudcted a study motivated by the Phenomenological Case researcher\u2019s desire to comprehend how strategic decision- Study making occurs in small and medium-sized retail businesses \\\"A Phenomenological Case in Greece. The focus of the study was on the retail location Study: Strategy Development decision-making process, as locational decisions are the most in Small and Medium Retail important strategic decision for a retail company, as they Enterprises in Greece during involve massive and typically long-term tying investments. Recession\\\" The researcher studied the strategic decision-making Case 2.8: Flexible process of individuals in small and medium-sized retail Qualitative Research companies in Greece during the country\u2019s economic recession. Design with Multiple The researcher used a phenomenological case study method Techniues, Grounded with a boundary to examine the locational decisions which Theory Case Study represented the major strategic decision for the selected Research companies as they involved massive and long-term bounding \\\"Digital Innovation in investments throughout the recession period. Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Case 2.8: A Grounded Theory Case Study Research Become a Challenge?\\\" Case 2.8 is a practical example of grounded theory research using a case study technique for designing the case\u2019s investigative boundary. Ivanov (2020) used the grounded theory method to examine the emerging role of digital innovation. The researcher employed a case study design to clarify the empirical setting and the investigative boundary. Using the boundary, the selected organizations for this empirical study were manufacturing \ufb01rms with a long tradition in physical product development. The central focus of this study was the use of digitalization to enhance product characteristics, with the \ufb01rm focusing on user-centricity and integrating services into physical products. The researcher positioned the study as the interpretive research paradigm and chose the grounded theory method with an exploratory aim of the inquired case study. Thus, the expected novel knowledge to be delivered as the research outcome was an important opportunity to advance and understand how digital innovation emerges in \ufb01rms in the manufacturing industry.","66 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.9: Flexible Case 2.9: Grounded Theory and Action Research Qualitative Research Case 2.9 is another example is the grounded theory method Design with Multiple can be employed in participatory action research, in which the Techniues, Grounded research settings have been predetermined or intervened. Theory and Action Research Abdel-Fattah (2015) employed two research techniques, \\\"Grounded Theory and grounded theory and action research, for evaluating e- Action Research as Pillars for government systems for the University Enrolment Service in Interpretive Information Egypt. The researcher used the speci\ufb01c technique of theoretical Systems Research: A sampling of grounded theory to perform an iterative process Comparative Study\\\" of multiple data collection and analysis until the study has saturated its theoretical explanation for the designated setting. The research outcomes were exploratory results from the two techniques, which they researcher speci\ufb01ed as Grounded Evaluation Framework (GEF) and Action Research Evaluation Framework (AREF). The researcher asserted that the combination of two methods helped increasing the explorative ability and reliability of the results. References Bailesteanu, G. (2009) \u2018Hermeneutics and Economics\u2019, Timisoara Journal of Economics, 2(3(7)), pp. 121\u2013128. Chanthes, S. (2021) \u2018Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\u2019, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72\u201381. doi: 10.34190\/ERM.21.066. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Chevalier, J. and Buckles, D. (2019) Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Routledge. doi: 10.4324\/9781351033268. Coast, J. (2017) Qualitative Methods for Health Economics. Rowman & Little\ufb01eld International Limited (G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects 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.","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 67 Currall, S. C. and Towler, A. J. (2003) \u2018Research methods in management and organizational research: toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques\u2019, in Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., and Teddlie, C. B. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 513\u2013526. Dumez, H. and Jeunema\u00eetre, A. (2005) \u2018The narrative approach in economics\u2019, Revue Economique, 56, pp. 983\u20131006. 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). Gray, D. (2014) Doing Research in the Real World, 3rd edition. SAGE Publications. Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) \u2018Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging con\ufb02uences\u2019, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 191\u2013215. Hill, E. and Meagher, G. (1999) Doing \u2018Qualitative Research\u2019 in Economics: Two Examples and Some Re\ufb02ections. Sydney: The Open University (Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences). Ivanov, M. (2020) \u2018Digital Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Become a Challenge?\u2019, in Baghdadi, Y., HarfoucheA., and Musso, M. (eds) ICT for an Inclusive World. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation. Cham: Springer, pp. 581\u2013590. doi: 10.1007\/ 978-3-030-34269-2_40. Jemna, L. M. (2016) \u2018Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods\u2019, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 9(9), pp. 154\u2013167. Killick, A. (2021) \u2018Not \u201cMy Economy\u201d: a Political Ethnographic Study of Interest in the Economy\u2019, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. SAGE Publications, 24(1), pp. 171\u2013186. doi: 10.1177\/13691481211007064. Kincheloe, J. L. and McLaren, P. (2011) \u2018Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research\u2019, in. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 285\u2013326. Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (2016) \u2018Qualitative and Ethnographic Methods in Economics\u2019, in Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (eds)","68 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Heterodox Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing (Handbooks of research methods and applications), pp. 135\u2013164. 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. Nix, E. et al. (2019) \u2018Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low-Income Housing in Delhi, India.\u2019, Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 3(4), p. 1800054. doi: 10.1002\/gch2. 201800054. Noisopha, S. and Wangkananoni, W. (2022) \u2018Strategies of Logistics Cost Management for Rice Exports by Sea Transportation to the International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters\u2019, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University, 16(2), pp. 25\u201336. Oast, J. and De Allegri, M. (2018) \u2018Qualitative Methods in Health Economics\u2019, in Oxford research encyclopedia: economics and \ufb01nance. Oxford University Press. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ acrefore\/9780190625979.013.93. Partington, D. (2002) \u2018Grounded theory\u2019, in Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 136\u2013157. Piore, M. J. (2006) \u2018Qualitative research: does it \ufb01t in economics?1\u2019, European Management Review. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 3(1), pp. 17\u201323. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/palgrave.emr.1500053. Polhong, T., Chanthes, S. and Songsrirote, N. (2022) \u2018Adaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: an Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand\u2019, in 2022 the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science (IMMS 2022). New York: ACM. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3564858.3564908. Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107, M. and Alecchi, B. A. (2016) Qualitative Methods in Economics. Routledge. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/ 9781315532257. Schwandt, T. A. (2014) The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE Publications. Stake, R. E. (2013) Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford Publications. Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. SAGE Publications. Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M. (2015) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Wiley. Theodoridis, C. (2014) \u2018A Phenomenological Case Study: Strategy Development in Small and Medium Retail Enterprises in","Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 69 Greece during Recession\u2019, in SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 1. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. doi: 10.4135\/978144627305014539099. Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2018) \u2018Hermeneutics: Interpretation, Understanding and Sense-making\u2019, in Cassell, A., Cunli\ufb00e, A. L., and Grandy, G. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 185\u20131200. Von Wright, G. (1993) \u2018Two Traditions\u2019, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: SAGE Publications (DEH313 : Principles of social and educational research), pp. 9\u201313. 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. (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.","70 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research","C3 Three Types of Grounded Theory 3.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Three types of grouned Qualitative researchers came to know the grounded theory method in theory, page 71: the 1960s when Barney Glaser and \ufb01rst introduced this method in Classical grouned theory their famous book The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The two Pragmatic grouned theory American scholars set out this method as a more de\ufb01ned and Positivist grouned theory systematic procedure for qualitative data collection and analysis (Goulding, 2002). By developing this method, they were motivated to Comparing the three types confront criticism of the credibility of qualitative research for the of grounded theory uniformity of its inductive theory development procedure. research, page 79 Glaser and Strauss (1967) claimed that this method is developed Practical examples, based on a scienti\ufb01c approach. They designed its investigative process page 82 to use a systematic and synthesis process of data collection and analysis to \ufb01nd scienti\ufb01c truth of social meanings with increased quality of accuracy and credibility compared to other typical inductive procedures (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory was therefore initially introduced as \\\"a powerful rationale for the logic and legitimacy of qualitative research\\\" to be promoted via a rigorous and transparent theory construction process (Wertz et al., 2011, p.56). However, since its introduction in the 1960s, its employment has grown in multiple directions. First, starting from Glaser and Strauss themselves later perceived the philosophical traditions to underpin the use of grounded theory di\ufb00erently. Then, the development of grounded theory in the later time di\ufb00ers from the \ufb01rst two directions, which emphasizes the objective viewpoint of the positivist root; it chooses the interpretivism stance and the construction of theory with the in\ufb02uence of subjective beliefs and values in the interpretation of social studies and human experiences Charmaz (2014).","72 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Consequently, the recent uses of grounded theory are recognized to be based in three di\ufb00erent directions: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory studies. Figure 3.1: Three Alternatives of Grounded Theory Research Source: the author. Considering that, grounded theory has been growing in separate directions. Over decades, di\ufb00erent researchers claimed di\ufb00erent philosophical underpinnings with departed views towards the appropriate use of the technique when undertaken empirically to study a diverse range of research questions in various social disciplines. This chapter will explain the three ways to recognize di\ufb00erent types of grounded theory studies: classical, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory. The chapter is going to outline the di\ufb00erences and similarities regarding the underpinning philosophies of the three alternatives. The appendix of this chapter will provide examples of empirical economic and management studies and discuss various ways in which researchers practically adopt di\ufb00erent grounded theory designs for their studies. 3.2 Separate Directions of Grounded Theory Research Three separate directions of The \ufb01rst direction is commonly referred to as Glaserian grounded the grounded theory theory (\u00c5ge, 2014) or Glaser\u2019s root grounded theory (Kaushik and method: Walsh, 2019). Glaser supports the positivist belief and asserts that 1. Glasserian grounded human phenomenon is seen as the object of the study (\u00c5ge, 2014). theory 2. Straussian grounded Unlike Glaser\u2019s, the second direction is known as Straussian theory grounded theory and Strauss\u2019s root ascent to interpretive pragmatism 3. Constructivist grounded (Bryant, 2017). This type of grounded theory belief in objective theory. determination with the attached subjective insights in the construction of theory (Kaushik and Walsh, 2019). The third direction, known as constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Mills et al., 2006), di\ufb00ers from the \ufb01rst two directions concerning the di\ufb00erent ontological viewpoints. Positivist and pragmatic grounded theory studies are rooted in the perceptions of the two originators of the method, which believed in objectively determined social meanings. The third direction, however, believes in the in\ufb02uences of the subjectivity of both researchers and those under the study.","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 73 Furthermore, the constructivist grounded theory follows the interpretivism epistemology paradigm, which accepts subject values and biases as an essential part in constructing a theory. For this reason, it is also referred to as (Cassiani et al., 1996; Levers, 2013). By employing this approach, the researcher seeks to construct a theory using their insight and sensibilities to \ufb01nd a theoretical explanation of the studied phenomenon to emerge from the research data (Wertz et al., 2011). Despite the similar conserved fundamental principle for open-endedness and synthesis iterative data processing for theory development, each alternative claims di\ufb00erent philosophical beliefs, hence various designs and management of the grounded theory studies. That is, researchers who chose to follow di\ufb00erent grounded theory directions have departing views towards how a grounded theory study should be undertaken to deliver credible results. This section will discuss the di\ufb00erent development and underpinning philosophies of the three grounded theory research types. 3.2.1 Classical Positivist Grounded Theory Glasserian grounded theory is a classical believing in Positivist grounded theory, also known as classical grounded theory post-positivist ontology (Timonen et al., 2018), is a type of qualitative method rooted in the and epistemology. post-positivist paradigm, which believes that the social world is an Glasserian grounded objective reality that exists externally. It is also widely referred to as theorists see the social and the Glaserian grounded theory concerning the original ideas of Glaser human phenomenon as the and Strauss, which it determinedly follows. The two scholars initially object of the study. introduced the grounded theory in the 1960s (\u00c5ge, 2014). Positivist grounded theory maintains the original concept emphasizing that qualitative research can employ scienti\ufb01c procedure, preferred by quantitative and natural sciences researchers, to study social inquiries and deliver objectively determined logical explanations. Glaser and Strauss developed this method concerning the undue emphasis on veri\ufb01cation of theorizing in qualitative social studies. These studies were often criticized for neglecting the e\ufb00orts on the centrality of predictions and applications of inductive theory-building. They argued, strongly motivated by objectivism and positivist approach, that a good theory should work well in the sense of predicting phenomena (Timonen et al., 2018). Thus, they co-worked on inventing grounded theory and claimed the use of the method to encounter limitations of typical inductive qualitative research regarding the veri\ufb01cation and prediction ability.1 1See Case 3.1, \\\"Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research\\\" by Randall (2012), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","74 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Despite being recognized as classical development, Glaserian root\u2019s positivist grounded theory has become less popular for practical research. According to Timonen et al. (2018), the emphasis on a sole researcher or a small team moving ahead as the research conduct goes to precisely sense the theory grounded in the data now seems in con\ufb02ict with many present-day institutional requirements and practices. Furthermore, considering the emphasis on positing in the positivist epistemology, trying to build an objectively determined theory has increasingly been criticized for contradicting the nature of exploratory social studies (Bryant, 2017). That is, by claiming the positivist tradition for the ontological and epistemological roots, Glaser denied using traditional scienti\ufb01c research assessment of reliability, validity, and generalizability. Instead, Glaser (1978) suggested alternative research re\ufb02ection for grounded theory to use the criteria of \ufb01t, work, relevance, and modi\ufb01able. Hence, objectivist scholars not convinced by Glaser\u2019s recommendation often criticize the rigor of classical grounded theory as questionable. The following sections will explain the \ufb01rst type of interpretive grounded theory, known as Straussian grounded theory or pragmatic grounded theory, followed by a section dealing with constructivist grounded theory, which is another type of interpretive grounded theory. 3.2.2 Interpretive Pragmatic Grounded Theory Straussian grounded theory Later after the foundation of grounded theory in the 1960s, Anselm is interpretive pragmatic Strauss, one of the two founders of grounded theory, departed from grounded theory. Barney Glaser, regarding the di\ufb00erent development of epistemological tradition of grounded theory method. Strauss conducted grounded theory as moving away from the traditional positivist paradigm, causing Glaser (1992) to criticize this direction as an altered version of the original discovered grounded theory. Grounded theory design of the Struass\u2019s root does not limit the epistemology concerning how researcher make sense of the social phenomenon or human experiences being inquired, on traditional positivism as typical positivist\/post-positivist research does. Instead, Straussian grounded theory is recognized as positioning in interpretivism epistemology, seeing social reality as multiple and relatively determined. Furthermore, it allows pragmatic interpretation in the investigative procedure, ultimately aiming to discover the cause-and-e\ufb00ect objective meanings of reality. Thus, many scholars perceive this alternative, so-called Straussian grounded theory (Bryant, 2017; Alammar et al., 2018; Randall, 2012), to be rooted in the pragmatism paradigm instead of the original","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 75 stance of positivism. That is, while similarly claiming the post-positivist ontology, pragmatic grounded theory is also referred to as an interpretive grounded theory to highlight the contrast from the classical grounded theory, which believes in the positivism epistemology (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Given the explanation of Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory methods, Figure 5.5 outlines common discussion on the two grounded theory\u2019s underpinning paradigms. Figure 3.2: Discussing the Grounded Theory\u2019s Underpinning Paradigms Source: Based on Randall (2012, p.868). Explanation: The ontological roots of the grounded theory method could range from extreme positivist to extreme interpretivist beliefs. Also, it could adopt either established quantitative procedures or non-uni\ufb01ed emerging qualitative techniques. Pragmatic interpretive research focuses on e\ufb00ective actions of Straussian grounded doing research as the primary consideration. A grounded theory of theorists are in\ufb02uenced by this type was co-developed by Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss pragmatisms seeing social following the departed directions of Glaser\u2019s and Strauss\u2019s roots. It is phenomena and human seen as a method with an ongoing validation, and a combination of experiences as multiple and induction and deduction (Timonen et al., 2018). According to Bryant relatively determined. (2017, p.339), \\\"pragmatists see action and emancipation lie at the basis of developing knowledge.\\\" Concerning the Pragmatist philosophical tradition, Timonen et al. (2018, p.2) states that grounded theory is motivated by pragmatic concerns in the \\\"colloquial sense of the term pragmatic\\\" concerning sensible, realistic, practical, feasible, and attainable. In other words, pragmatic grounded theory accepts the \ufb02exibility of qualitative research to a\ufb00ect the methodological choices of how the researcher approaches social meanings. It believes that social reality is multiple and can be made sense of through multiple lenses or interpretive perspectives depending on the researcher\u2019s clari\ufb01cation on the approach they choose for their speci\ufb01c enquiry. Additionally, the method allow abductive reasoning in the ongoing theory-building process as Str\u00fcbing (2007, p.595) illustrates, see Figure 3.3.","76 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Figure 3.3: The Logic of Inquiry in Pragmatic Grounded Theory Source: Based on Str\u00fcbing (2007, p.595). Explanation: The pragmatic grounded theory emphasizes \ufb02exibility in designing qualitative research. This type of grounded theory allows the possibility of multiple philosophical traditions in the theory construction. Therefore, it accepts abductive reasoning as part of the ongoing grounded theory analysis. The predictions of theoretical conceptions are allowed until the emerging theory is veri\ufb01ed by further data collection and analysis until it delivers the ultimate \ufb01ndings. Str\u00fcbing (2007, p.595) simpli\ufb01es this logic by illustrating the ongoing process of pragmatic grounded theory. It can be seen that there are loops of (1) hypothesis, (2) deductive inference\/experiment (requiring further data for hypothesis testing), (3) data collection during the empirical process under scrutiny, and (4) inductive\/abductive inference (theory building grounded in the collected data). The conceptual level of the evolving theory is growing along this process until the data collection in the loop gives no new insights. This type of grounded theory relies on the researcher\u2019s abductive attitude and multiple inferencing techniques, instead of any particular research paradigms, to lead the theory conduction. Pragmatic grounded theory has been employed in various disciplines, such as health sciences, information technology management, organizational studies, marketing, economics2, and management3. See Example 3.1 for economics research discussing the employment of pragmatic grounded theory. 2See Case 3.2, \\\"Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies\\\" by Turek and Krupnik (2014), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example. 3See Case 3.3, \\\"The Study of The De\ufb01nition And Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk for Premium Soy Milk: a Study of Grounded Theory\\\" by Kolkitchaiwan and Siriwong (2016), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example from Thailand.","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 77 Discussing the use of ground theory in economics research, Example 3.1: Pragmatic Finch (2002) examined grounded theory procedure to demonstrate grounded theory in how novel knowledge claims can be formulated within economics. economics research (Finch, The researcher scrutinized three research projects in the areas of 2002) economics and management, intending to review the contributions of researchers as they work closely with the data and the \ufb01eldwork of primary sources trying to develop a theory to explain the studied phenomenon. The \ufb01rst project was an investigation into marketing structure and concentration. The second project studied competitive oligopoly. The third project examined decision-making behaviors within large business organizations. Finch (2002) discussed that the researchers of the three projects made novel knowledge claims using a grounded theory producer as they worked closely with di\ufb00erent types and in relating their methods to the grounded theory technique. That is, those researchers started the study by doing open coding, axial coding, or the process of establishing dimensions across which variation within and between categories, then conducting selective coding to \ufb01nd causal conditions perceived as agents of theoretical explanations of actions being studied. After initially developing an emerging theory, theoretical sampling was consequently undertaken. As a result, the three projects delivered novel knowledge claimed as a grounded theory drawn for the practice of inference in economics research. . 3.2.3 Interpretive Constructivist Grounded Theory Constructivist grounded theory is a new direction of Another interpretive grounded theory is the constructivist grounded modern grounded theory. theory. This third design di\ufb00ers from the classical and pragmatic grounded theory regarding the chosen ontological stance rooted in anti-positivism. This type of grounded theory supports the anti-positivist perception of the social worldview as multiple realities with the existence of subjectivity. Although the constructivist grounded theory is commonly recognized as another type of interpretive grounded theory concerning its epistemological stance on interpretivism, it is essentially di\ufb00erent from pragmatic grounded theory regarding the otherwise claim on the ontological perspective. That is, pragmatic grounded theory preserves the ontological worldview of classical grounded theory seeing the world as an objective reality existing externally. Constructivism, however, is more decent to the anti-positivist tradition, often claimed by most qualitative researchers, and views the social world subjectively. Concerning the constructivist tradition, according to Bryant (2017), knowledge is constructed by both researcher and research participant to interpret the empirical evidence within the research context.","78 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Constructivist grounded It can be recognized that, similar to the pragmatic Strauss\u2019s rooted theory allows the subjective grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory retains the \ufb02uidity involvement of both the and open-ended analysis practice of pragmatism. Additionally, it adds researchers and those being a vital tool, known as constructivist sensibilities, to the typical studied in the theory grounded theory analysis. This tool helps lead the researcher to \u201clearn construction. and interpret nuances of meaning and action while becoming increasingly aware of the interaction and emergent nature\u201d of the research data and analysis (Charmaz, 2014, 184). Thus, constructivist researchers use both the research data and the researcher\u2019s interpretation to construct a grounded theory. In doing so, the research data is considered the \ufb01rst order facts whereas the researcher\u2019s interpretive analysis is the second order conception (Miles et al., 2014), see also Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: The Basic of Constructivist Theory- Building Source: the author. Explanation: The constructivist grounded theory allows the involvement of the researcher\u2019 subjective values and biases in the interpretation of the studied phenomenon. Therefore, the theory constructed claiming this type of grounded theory as a research outcome accepts two essential components of the theory development: \ufb01rst-order facts from the research data and the second-order conception from the researcher\u2019s interpretation. Charmaz (2014) asserts that constructivist grounded theory renews and revitalizes the pragmatist foundations of classical theory. Unlike the classical procedure, which only serves positivist researchers, constructivist grounded theory can serve researchers from anti-positivism roots. For this reason, this third type of grounded theory method is seen as more \ufb02exible when employed in qualitative studies concerning the \ufb02exibility of methodological designs across related underpinning philosophies is essential.4 4See Case 3.4, \\\"Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research to Build Theory\\\" by Rowlands (2005), at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example."]