Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 133 Example 5.8 Table: Emerged Concerns from the Coding Process, based on Mekawy (2022, p.17) Source: Based on Mekawy (2022, p.17). Explanation: Example 5.8 Table is a practical example of how an economic research structured an emerging conceptions at different abstraction levels to lay a foundation for construction an outcome of a grounded theory study. Mekawy (2022, p.17) identified codes at the different coding levels as concepts, sub-issues, and concerns. The codes and concepts created from the interview texts were claimed as open codes. Then, they were logically organized into sub-issues, which the researcher claimed as higher-level or axial coding. After that, the selecting coding delivers emerging rationales concerning the relationships across the axial codes that were defied as concerns of the inquired phenomenon, namely business concerns about public-private partnership (3Ps strategies) of tourism businesses in the Marsa Allam region of Egypt. The next section will deal with memos writing, which is another requisite process grounded theory researchers must undertake throughout the grounded theory analysis procedure.

134 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Two types of memos 5.5.3 Writing Memos are used as part of the grounded theory Memos are analytic notes. The process of memo-writing, also often analysis: referred to as memoing (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2014), is the 1. Early memos, compulsory analytical writing activity that every grounded theory 2. Advanced memos. researcher must perform throughout the iterative theory development. This process should be conducted in parallel with the hermeneutic analysis of the transcribed or recorded texts from the first processing of the data sources. The researcher should create a journey for successive memoing as early as the initial analysis begins. Charmaz (2014) suggests that this process helps prompt the researcher to be involved with the data and its analysis while increasing the abstraction level of their ideas. As important as the primary research data, the researcher’s analytical memos are also crucial for the researcher to develop a theory. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the function of memos is to present the researcher’s analytical comments on those being studied. Concerning the grounded theory’s original idea, the method emphasizes developing a theory to ground in the data, which gives credence to the theoretical construction (Goulding, 2002). However, the analysis based on the data alone without a track record of analytic comments can be decried for less credibility. In other words, such a theory developed without systematic and logical memos risks being criticized for providing lower levels of description. Memos can be classified into two types regarding the level of abstraction the researcher reflects on the data: early memos and advanced memos (Charmaz, 2014). Suggestions on the methods for writing the memos are as follows. Early Memos Early memos are the records of what the researcher sees happening in the data. At this early stage, the researcher writes memos to explore and fill out open codes. The researcher reviews and reflects on the research data trying to assign code names. While choosing the code names, the researchers should engage with the data by logically weaving their ideas into it, attempting to find appropriate code names that most fit the pieces of data and primarily predict relationships among the codes. These relationships can be any rationale linkages among the codes e.g. types, hierarchal patterns, grouping, sorting, basic characteristics, or statuses. The researcher may initially identify the code names using the same terms as the sources, such as the informants, used in providing the original data. This technique helps increase the confidence of further theory development to be grounded in the data. In the

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 135 meantime, the researcher should analytically scrutinize the implicit, Example 5.9: An unstated or condensed meaning in those codes and write memos of example design their ideas (Charmaz, 2014). for a form for keeping records Then, the early memos should guide the researchers to further and references of literature reviews trying to find the linkages between what emerge code names from the collected data and those already existing as acceptable knowledge in the field. This process of critically comparing the memos with the related literature not only helps the researcher refine the codes but also links the emerging conceptions and the researcher’s analytic ideas with disciplinary knowledge. It can also lay a foundation for strengthening scholarly arguments and discussions in the later stages of higher coding levels. Example 5.9 suggests how a researcher may use a table to keep records on the references of the code names. Project Title: ............................................................ Author, date (the literature) Subject area Coding name(s) and level(s) Purpose of study Research method Key findings Analytic notes Source: the author. Advanced Memos Advanced memos are the track records of the researcher’s progressing analytical abstractions. Writing memos at this stage requires the researcher to trace and categorize the data incorporated into the research topic (Charmaz, 2014). The researchers must be able to critically describe how the categories emerge and make a change in their sorting and organization when necessary, e.g., the categories may not adequately represent the data as the analysis proceeds to another data source or informants. Additionally, the researcher should start proposing assumptions regarding the emerging conceptual ideas they theoretically sensitize from analyzing the data and organize their thoughts based on the generated categories. Memos at this stage also include the analytic notes taken from reviewing and reflecting the identified axial or focused coding and their associated proposed hypotheses, recognized as theoretical memos (Miles et al., 2014). At this higher level of abstract writing, the researcher needs to support their memo-writing with evidence. Hence, they must constantly compare across diverse data sources as

136 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management well as related literature. Any coincidence or contradictory issues must be critically reviewed and explained theoretically. Advanced memos also function as the researcher’s draft for research presentation (Charmaz, 2014), given that the credibility of grounded theory relies on the strength of its systems for the logical construction of theory. The advanced analytic notes are, therefore, an essential element. See Example 5.10 for an example design for a form for keeping logical records of advanced memos. It must be noted that there are no rules for writing memos. Different researchers may design their own systems and forms for keeping the analytical records developed throughout the analysis processes. Example 5.10: An Project Title: .................................................................................................. example design for a form for composing Investigative Axial codes Selective codes advanced memos Proposition Identified Related What How relationships literature (the (emerging across findings hypothesis) categorizes Proposition 1 Proposition 2 Emerging conception 1 Emerging conception 2 Source: the author. Providing a practical example on how advanced memos can be prepared in practice, Example 5.11 shows a presentation of advanced memos in a management research by Manuell and Graham (2017). It presents how an organizational research uses a table to summarize the advanced memos. The type of analytic notes are often presented in a research publication.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 137 Manuell and Graham (2017) adopted the grounded theory method Example 5.11: for organizational action research. The study’s objective was Summarizing to examine the strategic planning for business and financial advanced memos practices of a selected organization. The theory construction an organizational of this study grounding in multiple sources of data, including research using the conversations; reviews of technical and nontechnical literature, e.g., grounded theory books, peer-reviewed journal articles, emails, correspondence, method (Manuell and research memoranda; media reports, journal entries, the Graham, 2017) researchers’ observational notes, organizational records and office memoranda, official minutes, reports, field notes, online See also sources, and photographs. Example 5.11 Table Explanation of Example 5.11 Table: The contents in the table were extracted concepts emerging from the analyzed data to address specific important aspects involving the improvement of the studied strategic planning matters. The researchers used a table to organize the data relevance and the emerged relationship. There were three columns in the memo: concept, research rationale, and data for research. This analytic table was used as a part of the coding, which eventually delivered the research outcome as Manuell and Graham (2017) examined a selected organization’s strategic planning for business and financial practices. Example 5.11 Table: Demonstration of Data Relevance and Relationship, based on Manuell and Graham (2017, p.8) Source: Based on Manuell and Graham (2017, p.8).

138 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management The following section will explain the constant comparison strategy, which benefits not only critical and credible memo writing but also the overall processes of the grounded analysis towards the theory construction. 5.5.4 Fieldwork Notes Fieldwork notes are always required concerning the researcher’s presence to record significant incidents as they visit the fieldwork site. The requirement of such records also applies to collecting data from the documents and audiovisual materials, despite these two data sources not usually referred to as fieldwork. The researcher’s presence as they review and analyze the sources is considered the researcher’s presence at the data sources. Therefore, in addition to processing the data collected from the sources, Creswell and Creswell (2017) suggest that the researchers and the research team members in charge of managing the data should also get additional prepared forms for recording fieldwork details. Furthermore, such fieldwork notes must also serve an organizing and analyzing purposes. Example 5.12 is an example of such a fieldwork note form. Furthermore, the fieldwork notes are often used as part of the grounded theory data analysis towards the theory construction. Example 5.12: Project Title: ........................................................... Suggested details for Document code/no. interviews/focus Interviewer/observer ’s name group Respondent’s name (s) discussions/observations fieldwork notes Place Date Time Duration Event Planned Agenda Field Notes Raw Notes Setting and atmosphere Recording audio(Y/N) Extras Live analytic comments Source: the author.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 139 5.5.5 The Constant Comparison Strategy Four stages of the constant comparison: As introduced at the beginning of this chapter, the grounded theory 1. Comparing method is the method of constant comparison . In The Discovery of incidences applicable Grounded Theory book, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p.105) defines this to each category; method to consist of \"four stages of constant comparison\" as follows: 2. Integrating comparing incidences applicable to each categories, integrating categories and their categories and their properties, delimiting the theory, and writing properties; the theory. 3. Delimiting the theory; and Bryant (2017) recognizes that constant comparison is a central 4. Writing the theory. aspect of the grounded theory method, considering that it applies Source: Glaser and throughout the grounded theory analysis. Although qualitative data Strauss (1967, p.105) analysis involves constant comparison across the data, what makes grounded theory different from other methods is the constant comparison of this method is the aggregation of its theoretical sampling procedure. That is, the constant comparisons in grounded theory serve not only the data analysis but also the sampling for further data collection as part of the essential procedure towards the theoretical saturation in grounded theory research. As a reminder, theoretical saturation in grounded theory analysis means no new insights are found when the researcher employs a proposed emerging theory to guide the criteria for the purposive sampling for the theory testing. Theoretical sampling is an essential part of the iterative process of grounded theory analysis, which comprises initial deductive and inductive reasoning through multiple data collection and analysis phases. Therefore, the grounded theory researchers must constantly compare not only the data but also the memos, the codes, and all the related literature as they create hypotheses, pretentiously recognized by Charmaz (2014) as the bones of a working skeleton or the grounded theory ultimately developed. The logic and purpose of constant comparison in the grounded theory method can be illustrated in Figure 5.5.

140 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Figure 5.5: The Basic of Constant Comparisons in Grounded Theory Study Source: Based on Bryant (2017, p.97). Explanation: The constant comparison strategy of the grounded theory method is not a linear process; instead, Bryant (2017, p.97) states that it is \"a spiral\". The research starts the coding from the lower level of abstraction by organizing and categorizing unstructured pieces of data logical arrangements. The researcher worked towards the higher levels of coding by revisiting all the primary sources of the data as loops, often with the search and retrieve techniques, to affirm the identified codes and category names. The procedure repeats in all the abstraction levels until the analysis finally reaches theoretical saturation.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 141 In Example 5.13, an economics research by Ngadimin et al. (2018) Example shows a practical example of a grounded theory study undertaking 5.13: Constant the constant comparison technique in economics research. Comparison in Economics Research Example 5.13 is a practical example showing how empirical (Ngadimin et al., economics research illustrates the memo writing and constant 2018) comparisons undertaken as part of the grounded theory analysis. Ngadimin et al. (2018) employed grounded theory See also to examine job opportunity loss in the abandonment of Example 5.13 shopping center projects in Malaysia. Constant comparison Figure was undertaken through the multiple phases of grounded theory analysis. They constantly compared not only the research data but also the fieldwork notes, the emerging codes at all levels, the memos, and the research data multiply collected from two abandoned shopping centers. It can be seen from Example 5.13 Figure that the constant comparison strategy was an ongoing process. The researcher constantly revisited primary data sources and compared emerging conceptual ideas with analytic writings. These basic steps are commonly found in practical, grounded theory studies. Researchers are advised not to rely on the theory construction on a single sequential data collection and analysis phase. Instead, any emerging common patterns need to be examined in all relevant data sources using the going back-and-fourth, revisiting loops, delimiting, and re- writing techniques.

142 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.13 Figure: General Scheme of a Constant Comparative Method, based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1147) Source: Based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1147). Explanation: This figure shows how economics research illustrated its technique used as the general scheme of a constant comparative method. The Figure was presented in Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1147), showing that the researchers collected research data from two sites: operational shopping centers 1 and 2. During the grounded theory analysis, there were loops of data collection, note-taking, coding, and memoing undertaken back and forth between the data of the two sites. First, they comparatively analyzed incidents applicable to each identified category as part of the open coding. Then, they integrated the categories and their properties. Following this was the delimiting theory process. Finally, the logical ideas obtained from this constant comparison strategy were used in the theory writing. This process was followed by finding a common pattern in the theory generation and proposing a hypothetical situation for the selected case sites, two abandoned shopping center projects in Malaysia that caused job opportunity loss. The following section will discuss grounded theory development, which is the expected ultimate outcome of grounded theory studies.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 143 5.6 Grounded Theory Development Theoretical development in grounded theory study is iterative and The term grounded emerging. As explained in the earlier sections, the interactive theory can be both processes of the grounded theory method involve the theoretical the technique’s sampling procedures comprising various phases, or loops, of method and multiple data collection, data analysis, theory building, and theory outcome. The theory testing. Towards the theoretical saturation, the developed theory as developed using this the outcome of this method is commonly affirmed as emerging method is known as substantive or formal theory. Discussions on these speculative an emerging grounded characteristics are as follows. theory. 5.6.1 The Emerging Theory The central focus is to logically extract the emerging concepts gradually developing from the lower level of open coding towards the higher level of abstraction when the theory saturates. Hence, the provisional outcomes as part of the theory development derive as theoretically relevant aspects (Timonen et al., 2018), or emerging codes, categories, properties, and dimensions (Ngadimin et al., 2018). These emerging elements also form variations, hierarchies, and other possible relationships among data across the different sources and phases of collection. According to Goulding (2002) these transitory outcomes are the emerging story as the study progresses on the theory development. With the openness of the method, the eventual outcome of this open-ended process can be claimed when the researcher sensitizes, e.g., sees, hears, or experiences the same things over and over again across all the data sources and their own notes, both early and advanced. In other words, as Merriam and Tisdell (2015, p.219) suggests, “the best rule of thumb is that the data and emerging findings must feel saturated; that is, you begin to see or hear the same things over and over again, and no new information surfaces as you collect more data.” Therefore, the expected outcome of the grounded theory study is an emerging finding (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) or emerging theory (Oast and De Allegri, 2018) or, specifically, an emerging grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). Example 5.14 shows how Abdel-Fattah (2015) communicates the processes of grounded theory research to saturate the theory.

144 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.14: Abdel-Fattah (2015) employed grounded theory action Communicating research to evaluate e-government information systems in the Processes of Egypt. They chose the grounded theory method to evaluate the Grounded Theory e-government systems in Egypt by examining the experience to Saturate the of essential stakeholders, the users, and the government Emerging Theory officials. The grounded theory method often involves multi- (Abdel-Fattah, 2015) phase data collection and interconnecting processes between the data collection and analysis, requiring the researchers to visit the fieldwork, or the primary data sources, multiple times. Also, it is typical that the grounded theory method, as the research outcome, is claimed as a substantive theory providing the answers to the question given the clarification of the chosen substantive area of research, both in terms of the disciplinary and the geographical regions with specific profiles and contextual conditions. The researcher adopted essential techniques to strengthen the credibility of the grounded theory conduct and results. Using grounded theory as the method, first, the basic theoretical sampling procedure required the researcher to conduct multiple phases of data collection. Secondly, several triangulating techniques were used, including data, theory, methodological, and triangulations. Finally, the researcher specifically identified the substantive areas of investigation on the selected types of information systems, namely the university enrolment of the e-government systems, selected country, and specific investigative focuses on comparatively evaluating the service according to the users’ against the service providers’ perspectives. In terms of the delivery of research outcomes, the developed substantive theory was used for explaining the evaluation of e-government information systems used by the students and provided by responsible government officials. In addition, the proposed substantive theory and its associated hypotheses helped identify the substantive areas for the future development of the -studied e-government systems. Grounded theory, as 5.6.2 Substantive and Formal Grounded Theories a research outcome, can be either formal A substantive theory is developed from working in a specific area; it or substantive. aims at providing explanation inside, not outside, this specific area of study. On the other hand, a formal theory is developed aiming at a higher level of explanatory power and generalizability. In this sense,

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 145 the substantive theory is a context-specific theory. Formal theory, on A substantive theory the other hand, is a context-free theory. is a lower level theory constructed The outcomes of grounded theory starey are usually substantive as a hypothetical to the specific areas of investigation. Novel knowledge development explanation from grounded theory economics and management research is applicable to a usually context-specific knowledge (Finch, 2002). It is a type of specific research practical knowledge in which the implication and replication require setting. comparative contextual conditions as an essential basis for the A formal theory application. Considering inquiries into economic and management is a higher level problems, different areas of studies, such as selected fieldwork, theory with higher individuals, or organization, are often diverse and different profiling. explanatory power Therefore, it is challenging for grounded theory to deliver a formal across a range of theory for which its application is generalizable, universal, and situations. uniform. Additionally, most researcher refers to the grounded theorist functioning as an essential research instrument for interpreting the inquired phenomenon as using the theoretical sensibility. However, there is a recognition of seeing this role as a non-unified procedure and highly subjective, as Finch (2002, p.215) refers to this role as the researcher “making imaginative connections” when they employed grounded theory in attempting to develop economic theory and claiming a novel knowledge development. Therefore, it is a challenge for the grounded theory study to deliver a formal theory concerning its rather not unified procedure and the highly subjective inductively determined methodological procedure. Despite challenging, using a grounded theory to develop a formal theory that theoretically explains the studied phenomenon is possible (Goulding, 2002; Glaser, 1992; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). However, as pointed out by Hill and Meagher (1999) and Coast (2017), the attempt to make grounded theory a formal theory can cost tremendous resources concerning its open-ended processes. Furthermore, grounded theory requires multiple phases of data collection through theoretical sampling, which is used for setting out further data collection criteria and further in the field. Since these time-consuming and resource-consuming processes need to continue until the emerging theory reaches saturation, if the research aims to develop a formal context-free theory, a grounded theory without specific clarifications of contextual conditions and boundary of investigation can result in exceedingly budget or, else, incomplete research. Grounded theory, as a research outcome, can be either substantive or formal, depending on the research objective, the specification of the area under the investigation, and resource availability. However, although possible, is needs to be aware that

146 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.15: using the grounded theory method to develop a formal theory can be Research Process and a tremendous time and resource-consuming project. Substantive Theory Saturation (Chanthes, Providing an example of grounded theory conduct in practice, 2010) Example 5.15, shows how Chanthes (2010) clarified the ultimate outcome of her grounded theory study as a substantive theory. See also Example 5.15 Example 5.15 is a practical example presenting how a management Figure research communicates the processes of grounded theory research to deliver a substantive theory. Chanthes (2010) employed grounded theory to examine the delivery of academic services to contribute to the economic development of their regions. The study clarified the scope of investigation using a specific bounded system of a multi-site case study. The researcher collected qualitative data using semi- structured interviews and documentary analysis of institutional and government documents. As outlined in the flowchart in Example 5.15 Figure, the substantive area of the investigation is bounded within the contextual conditions concerning the regional, institutional and individual profiles of those academics and their universities selected as the case sites. Concerning the case’s boundary, the researcher declared the delivery of substantive grounded theory as the research outcome, providing the exploratory explanation of how academic staff in the studied regions contribute to the regional economies with their academic services. Explanation of Example 5.15 Figure : the figure shows how Chanthes (2010) illustrated the use of grounded theory to examine the delivery of academic services at the regional level in Thailand. The researcher adopted a multi-site case study to design the investigative boundary. Given the research question asking how the services were delivered to make an impact on regional development, the researcher started the theoretical sampling using institutional documents as the initial data source. The researcher then used the initial analysis to develop the first interview data collection instrument used in a pilot study, followed by the interview fieldwork at the three selected universities, anonymously named A, B, and C. Then, there were the grounded theory coding loops as the researcher went back and forth across the lower and higher level case and across all data sources of all the fieldwork sites. Once the emerging theory was eventually saturated, the researcher claimed that the study finally proposed a substantive theory to explain three discovery aspects grounded in the data from Thailand. These aspects were bounded within academics’ regional, institutional and individual profiling as they performed service tasks to make a regional impact.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 147 Example 5.15 Figure: Research Process and Substantive Theory Saturation, based on Chanthes (2010, p.108) Source: Based on Chanthes (2010, p.74).

148 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 5.7 Research Triangulations Triangulation is an additional strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes, in addition to fundamental strategies of using systematic coding, analytical memo writing, and performing constant comparisons. Guba and Lincoln (2017) supports the use of triangulation as the instrument to assess the credibility and the confirmability of qualitative research. According to Bitsch (2005), methodological literature often suggests four types of triangulation: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological triangulation. The practical employment of these triangulating techniques is explained as follows. Four types 5.7.1 Data Triangulation of research triangulations: Data triangulation refers to qualitative researchers using various 1. Data triangulation, data sources instead of using only a single source, or type, of data. 2. Investigator For instance, research collecting data using open-ended interviews triangulation, to collect primary research data for exploratory purposes can also 3. Theoretical use documentary analysis of publications and texts as the secondary triangulation, source research data. The researcher uses multiple data sources to 4. Methodological answer the research question in data triangulation. By doing so, the triangulation. triangulation technique can vary the data collection across time, space, or different people. When the data is collected from different samples, places, or times, the results are more likely to be generalizable to other situations. 5.7.2 Investigator Triangulation Investigator triangulation means the researchers request additional assistance from other researchers to work as a team on the same project. Concerning the matters of subjective influences and biases on the data analysis, this technique helps balance the predispositions of the data construction. Researchers can gather, process, or analyze data separately by using numerous observers or researchers in investigator triangulation. The likelihood of observer bias and other experimenter biases is decreased with the aid of investigator triangulation. 5.7.3 Theoretical Triangulation Theoretical triangulation is the technique in which researchers pursue and test the developed theory in various areas or use multiple phases to test the developed theory. It aims to bring various perspectives to bear on the data set. This technique is essentially an automatic procedure in grounded theory. The theoretical sampling

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 149 procedure rather focuses on scrutinizing new emerging insights, not the predetermined size of samples. Therefore, theory triangulation in grounded theory involves its theoretical sampling procedure requiring the researcher to collect data and develop and test the conceptual ideas using multiple phases. 5.7.4 Methodological Triangulation Methodological triangulation refers to the use of multiple, instead of a single, methods, for the investigation of one specific inquiry. Using different investigative techniques to find answers to the particular question of the inquired phenomenon can reduce possible distortions or misrepresentations using a single method. This triangulating technique is generally adopted in mixed-methods research. This section has discussed the grounded theory method in practice concerning the data collection and analysis procedure, along with various examples of practical employment of the technique in economics and management research. Given the examples presented, grounded theory researchers usually visualize other significant procedures relating to the data processing to communicate with the research audience how they systematize the theory development as the research outcomes. The following section will discuss the diverse underpinning philosophies which lead to the classification of grounded theories into three types: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theories. 5.8 Using Computer Software in Grounded Theory Data Computer-Assisted Analysis Qualitative Data Analysis Software Various clerical tasks, such as filing research data, indexing, (CAQDAS) is photocopying, cutting and pasting pieces of text related to a code, pronounced “cactus” and sorting codes and categories, are required for qualitative data (Yin, 2011, p.180). analysis. As pointed out by Flick (2019), all of these activities are laborious, time-consuming, and prone to clerical mistakes. To minimize such errors, Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS), pronounced “cactus” (Yin, 2011, p.180), is often used by grounded theory researchers to organize data more effectively and manage the complexity of grounded theory analysis. There are several such software applications. Each is supplied by a separate vendor, and the cost of any one software might surpass 30,000 Thai Baht. ATLAS-ti, NVivo, and MAXqda appear to be popular applications. There are also other software packages available e.g. HyperRESEARCH, QDA Miner, Qualrus, and Transana

150 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management (Costa et al., 2022; Silverman, 2020). Each manufacturer also regularly releases upgraded versions. Although the usage of a CAQDAS program is not required, it facilitates the challenges of maintaining error-free data and code records and accessing information throughout analytical operations. In this context, variation on the CAQDAS programs are essentially developed to support code-and-retrieve activities (Bryman, 2021). Therefore, using CAQDAS was only marginal to the tasks of the grounded theory analysis. Goulding (2002, p.94) points out that theory construction is \"a mental activity\" where sensitivity to the data conceptualization is required. Concerning the researcher as the instrument used in qualitative data analysis, it should be noted that computers cannot replace the researcher’s role. For this reason, the use of CAQDAS in a grounded theory study provides no means of interpretive analysis in theory development. In other words, CAQDAS is rather recommended for work as a project clerk. It is used to follow the researcher’s commands to do only non-emotional and non-rational tasks. The following are the recommended steps: 1. First, the researcher stores physical records of data and information, such as interview transcripts, related documents and literature and photocopies of documents and related literature. 2. Secondly, the researcher enters the computer-assisted phase. At this point, the researcher should create a material preparation system, including data input, filing, and indexing. This is to replace the physical use of filing cabinets and physical index labels for enhancing the code-and-retrieve procedure. Key activities are inputting, filling and indexing the data using the document management units in the CAQDAS software of the researcher’s choice. 3. Thirdly, the researcher moves to the grounded theory’s constant comparisons procedure, given that the two essential processes of coding are required throughout the analysis processes. Any properties generated during the operation, such as codes, categories of codes and the researcher’s memos, should be provisional as the construction of the theory continues. In practice, although using CAQDAS, some very time-consuming tasks are required and recommended to be performed manually; these include photocopying a pile of interview transcripts and related documents, performing a line-by-line analysis, using highlighters of various colors to mark important

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 151 items, and generating initial codes before entering them into CAQDAS. Even though these techniques are time-consuming, they are deemed worthwhile since the researcher eventually grew familiar with the data, which proved to be very beneficial as the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity was also enhanced. 5.9 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter has explained the grounded theory design as management. It started with a practical guide on how to get started with grounded theory study. This introductory section explained how to ask appropriate grounded theory research questions to allow the investigation’s exploratory direction and identify the unit of analysis. It also outlined the standard grounded theory process. The following section introduced various types of qualitative data that are often essential for qualitative analysis. The chapter then emphasized the significance of literature review in grounded theory, which should be undertaken in three ways: preliminary literature review, during the data collection and analysis, and finalizing the theory development. Then, the chapter provided fundamental guidelines for grounded theory data collection and analysis. It explained the theoretical sampling procedure of the grounded theory method. The process required grounded theory researchers to undertake multiple phases, or iterative loops, of theory-building and theory-testing approaches of the emerging theory until it reached saturation. This part also outlined the four levels of grounded theory coding, classified by the level of abstraction: open, axial, selective, and theoretical. The following section explained memo writing methods, an essential process to help the researcher keep analytical notes as the grounded theory study proceeded. This section described how to write two types of memos, early and advanced memos, requiring the researcher to write throughout the grounded theory processes. This section also explained the constant comparison technique for grounded theory analysis. The researcher was advised to develop a system to make comparisons of coding and emerging concepts constantly and analytically across diverse data sources as part of the essential procedure toward theoretical saturation. Then, the chapter clarified and explained the two types of emerging theory, formal and substantive, as the grounded theory outcomes. After that, it explained an essential research strategy known as research triangulations as the technique to cross-check findings from qualitative methods. Finally, suggestions for possible practical use of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) were provided.

152 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management The next chapter will discuss the reflection and evaluation of grounded theory study, focusing on the use of this method in the economics and management disciplines. Key Terms Advanced memo, 135 Investigator triangulation, 148 Axial coding, 125 Literature review, 113 Methodological triangulation, 149 CAQDAS, 149 Open coding, 124 Research triangulations, 148 Constant comparison, 139 Selective coding, 126 Data analysis, 119 Substantive theory, 144 Data collection, 119 Theoretical coding, 127 Data triangulation, 148 Theoretical sampling, 120 Early memo, 134 Theoretical triangulation, 148 Emerging theory, 143 Theoretical saturation, 118 Fieldwork note, 138 Unit of Analysis, 111 Formal theory, 145 Grounded theory process, 108 5.10 Exercises 1. What is technical and nontechnical literature used in qualitative research conduct? Provide some examples. 2. Discuss the contradicting ideas concerning the necessity of an initial literature review between the traditional grounded theory and modern grounded theory studies. Do you think grounded theorists should review preliminary technical literature before the first data collection? Discuss. 3. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the influences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry. Finish the tasks below: • Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. • Outlines the iterative process of your proposed project. • Identify the unit of analysis. • Plan on how you would start the initial data collection. Specify the possible types of the data and sources. • Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 153 4. Assuming you plan to research the industrial concentration of homestay businesses in a selected province in Thailand. You plan to use mixed methods research for your study. One is using quantitative analysis of existing industrial concentration theories of the economic discipline. You also plan to use a grounded theory method to examine the exploratory entrepreneurial perceptions and competitive behaviors of the locals who own homestay businesses in the selected geographical area. Finish the tasks below: • Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. • Identify the unit of analysis of your study. • Define how you would manage your research. Would it initially start with either a quantitative or qualitative method? Explain. • For the grounded theory part, form a set of initial questions to start with. • Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain. 5. Considering your answers to the question 4, declare the type of your proposed grounded theory project; is it a classical, pragmatic, or constructivist grounded theory? Are the underpinnings and types of the two projects similar or different? Explain. 6. What are research triangulations? How can a grounded theory researcher triangulate the grounded theory study and its results? Explain. References Abdel-Fattah, M. A. (2015) ‘Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study’, Egyptian Informatics Journal, 16(3), pp. 309–327. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eij.2015.07.002. Bitsch, V. (2005) ‘Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria’, Journal of Agribusiness, 345(2016–15096), p. 17. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press.

154 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press. Chanthes, S. (2010) Delivering Academic Services at Regional Level: a Grounded Theory Study of Thai Academics. PhD Thesis. University of Southampton. Chanthes, S. (2021) ‘Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand’, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72–81. doi: 10.34190/ERM.21. 066. Chanthes, S. and Sriboonlue, P. (2021) ‘Triple Helix Model in Practice: A Case Study of Collaboration in University Outreach for Innovation Development in Local Farming Community Enterprise in the Northeast Region of Thailand’, in ECIE 2021 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vol 1. Pafos, Cyprus: Academic Conferences limited, pp. 194–203. doi: 10.34190 /EIE.21.116. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Coast, J. (2017) Qualitative Methods for Health Economics. Rowman & Littlefield International Limited (G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series). Costa, A. P. et al. (2022) Computer Supported Qualitative Research: New Trends in Qualitative Research. Springer International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems). Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Finch, J. H. (2002) ‘The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(2), pp. 213–234. doi: 10.1080/13501780210137119. Flick, U. (2019) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th edn. SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 155 Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 191–215. Hill, E. and Meagher, G. (1999) Doing ‘Qualitative Research’ in Economics: Two Examples and Some Reflections. Sydney: The Open University (Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences). Jemna, L. M. (2016) ‘Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods’, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 9(9), pp. 154–167. LeCompte, M. D. and Schensul, J. J. (2010) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. 2nd edn. Plymouth: AltaMira Press. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) ‘Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers’, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74–90. Mekawy, M. A. (2022) ‘A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses’ Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19’, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 70(1), pp. 9–27. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Ngadimin, N. F., Mar Iman, A. H. and Raji, F. (2018) ‘Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project’, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS), pp. 1142–1169. Oast, J. and De Allegri, M. (2018) Qualitative Methods in Health Economics, Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.93. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. Polhong, T. and Puangpronpitag, S. (2020) ‘Innovative Entrepreneurship in Local Cross-Country Freight Enterprises in Thailand’, in ECIE 2020 15th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Rome, Italy, pp. 468–475. doi: 10.34190/EIE.20.159. Puangpronpitag, S. (2015) ‘Entrepreneurship: A contemporary challenge to sustainable competitiveness of Thai Rubber

156 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management farmers’, in European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Genoa, Italy: Academic Conferences International Limited, pp. 561–566. Punch, K. F. (2013) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. SAGE Publications. Radović-Marković, M. and Alecchi, B. A. (2016) Qualitative Methods in Economics. Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315532257. Randall, W. S. (2012) ‘Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), pp. 863–880. Renjith, V. et al. (2021) ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research.’, International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, p. 20. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_321_19. Rowlands, B. H. (2005) ‘Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research to Build Theory’, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(1), pp. 81–92. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications. Suangsub, P., Chemsripong, S. and Srisermpoke, K. (2022) ‘High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand’, Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 15(1), pp. 98–112. Timonen, V., Foley, G. and Conlon, C. (2018) ‘Challenges When Using Grounded Theory: A Pragmatic Introduction to Doing GT Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), pp.1-10. doi: 10.1177/1609406918758086. Wertz, F. J. et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. Guilford Publications. Yin, R. K. (2011) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Publications.

C6 Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 6.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Discourses on For every research design, quantitative, qualitative, and a mixture of qualitative research both, the research conduct needs to be reflected and evaluated for its assessment, page quality and credibility. Therefore, the chapter will deal with the 158 subsequent essential matters following the use of grounded theory Classicla criteria, study as a suitable method: the reflection and evaluation of the page 159: technique. validity, reliability For grounded theory, the outcomes should be a theory first and generalization foremost (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The results-oriented theory Method-Appropriate should identify the theoretical concepts and relationships that are Criteria: the frequently stated as hypothetical probability assertions. According to grounded theory Glaser (1978), hypothetical probability assertions describe how one focus, page 164 notion influences and interacts with another. Therefore, the theory must be written conceptually (i.e., about concepts) and theoretically (i.e., about the relationships). The product/result should not, as is customary in many qualitative approaches, describe the data or participants. Therefore, the theory should not mention the participants unless they are used as an illustration of a theoretical notion or link. Additionally, it should not generate themes, as thematic analysis does. Constant comparative analysis results in the finding of a core category (Glaser, 1992), which is the primary pattern of behavior that addressed the data-driven challenge. Core category is used interchangeably with core variable core concept in some publications. The core category is the key concept of the theory that describes how people in the research area resolve what they find troublesome. All other notions in the theory connect to and explain

158 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study this central category. The reviewer must first examine whether the theory clearly identifies a central category and the theory’s centrality. Then, the examiner should decide whether the other concepts link to the theory’s centrality and contribute to the explanation of the core category. Various propositions of how qualitative research should be assessed, or evaluated, can be classified into two groups (Flick, 2019): classical and method-appropriate. The chapter, therefore, will begin by outlining issues and debates regarding the quality judgement of qualitative research, with a particular focus on the grounded theory method. The second section will explain the three classical criteria for research evaluation. Then, considering the discussions and discourses on the appropriateness of using the classical criteria for judging qualitative research, the third section focuses on evaluating qualitative research and will deal with the increasing use of method-appropriate criteria, wildly adopted as alternative measures for qualitative studies. Then, the final section will critically discuss the use of classical and method-appropriate criteria, both evidently employed by diverse economics and management grounded theory studies. This concluding section will ultimately offer critical considerations for grounded theory researchers to choose the most suitable judgment criteria for their research. Research assessment is a critical procedure for reflecting the credibility of research by applying various criteria developed by the researcher as appropriate to the nature and characteristics of the study. Two different 6.2 Discourses on Qualitative Research Assessment propositions to judge qualitative research: \"A reliable research is a credible research. Credibility of a qualitative classical and method- research depends on the ability and effort of the researcher\" (Cypress, appropriate criteria. 2017, p.258). Qualitative research is broadly employed in economics and management studies. It is widely considered suitable to tackle a broader range of economic and managerial problems to understand better the details of phenomena being difficult to address with qualitative methods (Bitsch, 2005). However, evaluating its rigor and credibility can be problematic and debated. At present, issues on the criteria for evaluating qualitative research are still actively raised by the persistent concern with the rigor and credibility matters. Scientific and quantitative research methods are mostly rooted in positivist paradigms. They believe that reality is externally and can

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 159 be made sense of objectively. Therefore, these methods usually adopt the traditional criteria known as the trinity of validity, reliability, and generalizability to evaluate the research quality (Flick, 2019). Unlike quantitative research, the criteria used for evaluating qualitative research can be diverse and ununified concerning its variety, complex and subject-oriented designs. Guba and Lincoln (2017) point out that the problem of diversity, hence criticizing on different perspectives and argumentative views on how qualitative research should be assessed has not yet been solved. According to Flick (2019), the different propositions of appropriate way to judge the merit of qualitative studies can be classified into three groups: classical, method-appropriate and ongoing criteria. The following sections will provide explanations and discussions on how grounded theory studies employ these criteria for reflecting and evaluating the research. 6.3 Classical Evaluation Criteria Most positivist and post-positivist researchers support the use of Classical evaluating classical criteria of validity, reliability, and generalization. Rooted in measures available the positivist worldview, this group of researchers believes in an for judging the objective meaning of the phenomenon being studied. Therefore, credibility of they perceive the explanation to those being studied, such as grounded theory individuals, organizations, or phenomena, should be external, research are validity, accurate, and standardized. reliability, and generalization. There are controversial debates, against and supportive, of using classical criteria to judge grounded theory study. Various criticisms and rationales for using the criteria are discussed in this section as follows. 6.3.1 Validity in Grounded Theory Validity refers to the accuracy of how the research is conducted and delivers the results. Researchers must be able to explain how they conclude that the selected method was valid. The researcher’s validity is closely related to ethical conduct. Every researcher is expected to ensure that the study has been carried out ethically (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Su, 2018). Using the results to explain those studied must be accurate. There are various ways researchers can undertake to ensure validity. For example, Yin (2017) suggests four classical tests of research comprising three validity tests and a reliability test:

160 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Validity refers to the 1. internal validity (the research results are accurate when used to accuracy of how the explain those studied); research is conducted and delivers the 2. external validity (the research results provide rigorous results. implications when applied to other situations); 3. construct validity (correct items are identified as operational measures, also known as hypothetical contracts (Creswell and Creswell, 2017); and 4. reliability (the research results are the same when repeating the same research procedure). Similarly, Kvale (2002) indicates validity as a component of the trinity of reliability, validity, and generalization. The assessment of validity focuses on the accuracy of the research results. That is, when revisiting the site, the derived results should explain those studied accurately. Merriam and Tisdell (2015) suggests that researchers, quantitative and qualitative, must carefully apply the standard well-developed and accepted design for the investigation to make the research acceptable for validity. Considering the importance of research validity, however, there are criticisms against using validity in qualitative research, in which the designs are flexible, context-oriented, and difficult to standardize. Therefore, validity is sometimes decried as not suitable for the characteristics of qualitative studies. Various criticisms against using validity to assess qualitative research concern the underlying interpretative paradigms. Debating issues relate to the following: the role of the researcher as an analysis instrument; the multiple realities; unmeasured variables; and the lack of hard and fast rules of procedure, especially for those methods allowing the absence of specific data collection and analysis planning in advance of the fieldwork (Goulding, 2002). Although regarded as qualitative research, grounded theory study is considered distinctive from typical qualitative research and claimed to have a standard well-developed design (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The constant comparison strategy, the iterative theoretical sampling strategy, and the dynamic development of emerging theory is argued to be the standard procedure to promote the research validity in grounded theory research (Corbin and Strauss, 2015) and help increase the scientific value of its results (Charmaz, 2014). Therefore, grounded theory study defends the validity in assessing this method as suitable, regarding the methodological guidelines emphasizing the comparative methods and standardized steps for coding emerging open, axial, selective, and theoretical

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 161 codes. Its procedure is argued to be well-developed, variable-oriented, standardized, systematic, and transparent. 6.3.2 Reliability in Grounded Theory Reliability refers to the repeatability of Reliability refers to the repeatability of the research. That is, when the research. That using the same conduct, the same outcomes are expected to derive. is, when using the Reliability is broadly accepted as an appropriate evaluating criterion. same conduct, the However, it is often criticized for not being suitable for judging same outcomes are qualitative research, especially the methods allowing subjectivity as expected to derive. part of the interpretation practice concerning the different subjective beliefs, biases, and values (Guba and Lincoln, 2017). Considering the matters of subjectivity, it can be challenging to repeat the data collection processes and then get the entirely exact results from qualitative studies of social interactions and human experiences. Therefore, using the reliability logic, the possibility of imperfect repeatability of results may lead to judging the grounded theory method as having less reliability quality. All three types of grounded theory study accept subjectivity, regardless of the different philosophical paradigms that classified them as objectively (positivist classical grounded theory) or subjectively determined (interpretivism pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory) interpretive procedure. That is, the classical, pragmatic, and constructivist grounded theory accepts the existence of subject matters in social sciences research, economics, and management. Despite the acceptance of subjectivity, reliability can still be used for reflecting and evaluating grounded theory by providing several considerate rationales as follows: 1. First, grounded theory researchers may declare the substantive area of investigation. 2. Second, an adequate theoretical sampling procedure should provide suitable criteria with logical flows for the multi-phase data collection and analysis throughout the research procedure. 3. Thirdly, the theoretical saturation strategy is accomplished based on multi-phase iterative data collection and analysis. The processes are logically guided by theoretical sampling or hypothetical purposeful sampling criteria for sequential theory-building and theory-testing. Therefore, these systematic analytical practices have repeatedly tested the grounded theory results before reaching multiple saturation.

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

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 163 literature or related theories and previous studies in the disciplinary area as a crucial part of the theory construction. The choice of technical terms to fit the emerging concepts is significantly related to the knowledge in the field. The conceptual properties constituting the highest level of codes, or the theoretical codes, are considered generalizable. The grounded theory, as an outcome of the study, is comparable based on the relevant variables. Hence the generalization is recognized as apparent. There is, however, an important critique of employment generalizability to evaluate a grounded theory study, which is considered a type of qualitative research. In quantitative research, generalization, which is an act of thinking that involves drawing broad generalizations from specific observations, is commonly accepted as a quality standard. However in qualitative research, it is more disputed. Critics of not using generalization as an appropriate criterion are concerned with the relatively small sample size of qualitative data compared to those sampled for quantitative research. However, from the grounded theory’s point of view, the small sample does not necessarily imply a smaller chance for generalization. 6.3.4 Rationales for Considering Using Classical Criteria Providing criticisms and supportive rationales for the classical scientific measures discussed above, essential considerations on using classical criteria in grounded theory study are summarized in Table 6.1, next page.

164 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Table 6.1: Considerations on Using Classical Criteria in Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. 6.4 Method-Appropriate Criteria in Qualitative Research According to Flick (2019), qualitative processes are peculiar. Therefore, method-appropriate criteria concern the specific individuality and specificity of the qualitative research processes, which could be differently designed across different projects. Despite the flexibility, the merit of qualitative methods is judged based on these processes (Guba and Lincoln, 2017). Hence, to not use classical criteria of validity, reliability, or generalization, and to instead use method-appropriate criteria, the grounded theory research need to provide a convincingly rational explanation of their choice.

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 165 Some researchers have long been concerned about the interpretive nature of qualitative data collection. The reliability of qualitative data based on immediate interactions recorded by solitary, possibly biased qualitative observers has been questioned by quantitative researchers. To address these concerns, qualitative researchers scrambled to adopt a dispassionate stance toward their studies. Such issues have sparked debates regarding the role of interpretation in the ensuing analyses. Therefore, to judge the grounded theory processes using method-appropriate criteria, including the iterative theoretical sampling, coding of the open, axial, selective, and theoretical codes, constant comparison, and theoretical saturation processes. 6.4.1 Method-Appropriate Criteria for Grounded Method-appropriate Theory Study criteria are alternative Concerning the motivation for Glaser and Strauss (1967) to invent measurements the grounded theory method, qualitative researchers have paid less used for assessing attention to the entire research process as interactive, possibly the credibility of because many of them were vying for a place in traditional grounded theory quantitative scientific discourses and thus sought objectivity. That is, research. in the past, the shroud of objectivity surrounding grounded theory obscured its interactive strength. Glaser and Strauss (1967) acknowledged that grounded theory requires criteria to specify the specific research design and, more crucially, to assess the emerging theory. When they first articulated grounded theory as a methodology, they established criteria for determining the theory’s applicability. Glaser (1992) increased the criteria over time to include fit, understandability, relevance, grab, general, functionality, control, and modifiability. A hypothesis anchored in the data satisfies these conditions. The hypothesis must closely match the data and the replacement region. Due to its compatibility with the data and substantive domains, the theory should be understandable and relevant to both experts and nonprofessionals in the field (Linden and Palmieri, 2022). When a theory is intelligible and applicable, it frequently has grab, which means it is intriguing and memorable to individuals within the subject area (Glaser, 1978). In addition, the theory must be sufficiently general to be \"applicable to a multitude of diverse daily situations within the substantive area\" (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p.23), allowing it to function by explaining what happened, predictinging what will happen, and interpreting what is happening in the substantive area and allowing the user some measure of control within the situation (Glaser, 1978) . Also, the theory must be adaptable when new evidence is introduced and the subject matter

166 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study Examples of method- evolves over time. In addition, the grounded theory procedure appropriate criteria should be economical. Thus, the theory should contain just the e.g. fit, work, concepts that represent appropriate behavior patterns and that are relevance, modifiable, required to explain, predict, and analyze what is occurring in the trustworthiness, subject area. authenticity, and the quality of specificity. Consequently, different scholars suggest various appropriate criteria possibly adopted for qualitative grounded theory. For instance, Glaser (1978) recommends the criteria of fit, work, relevance, and modifiable for judging grounded theory research. Another suggested criteria, Denzin and Lincoln (2017) recommend trustworthiness and authenticity as the criteria, specifically for constructivist studies. Alternatively, Nowell et al. (2017) points out that trustworthiness criteria are met when a qualitative research can provide critical reflections to support its credibility, dependability and confirmability. The other suggestion by Corbetta (2011), recommends using the quality of specificity to evaluate qualitative results. 6.4.2 Choosing Evaluating Criteria for a Grounded Theory Study Notwithstanding the variation of positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theories, the modern and reflexive grounded theory maintains interaction with the research data and emerging ideas. Moreover, it does so in ways that encourage the development of abstract interpretations. From the researcher’s tentative interpretations in initial coding and memos toward the final project, grounded theory methods allow the researcher’s fleeting thoughts and immediate questions and encourage you to give your ideas concrete form through analytical writing. In modern days, grounded theory researchers reflect their studies using classical and method-appropriate criteria. The selection of measures depends on how they see the grounded theory method, either as a scientific method to deliver objectively determined results or as a qualitative interpretive study to deliver subjectively determined outcomes. For the former perspective, the classical measures are often the choice. Alternatively, the latter standpoint can opt for method-appropriate criteria. In summary, grounded researchers can choose single or multiple measures as they see suitable and convincing for performing rigorous research. To provide examples, Table 6.2 classifies the example economics and management research publications used as the case examples in the previous chapters of this book regarding the selected criteria chosen for each study. It can be seen that there is a group of studies using the standard tests of classical criteria, namely

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 167 validity, reliability, and generalizability. Another group is those choosing method-appropriate measures for reflecting on and evaluating the research. Example Literature Selected Criteria Type of Criteria Table 6.2: Different Abdel-Fattah (2015) Validity Classical Selections of Criteria Chanthes (2021) Rigor Method-appropriate for Judging Grounded Transparency Theory Finch (2002) Explanatory function Classical Hill and Meagher (1999) Exemplifying quality Classical Manuell and Graham (2017) Validity Classical Mekawy (2022) Validity Method-appropriate Ngadimin et al. (2018) Validity Classical Randall (2012) Reliability Classical Rowlands (2005) Generalizability Classical Thai et al. (2012) Trustworthiness Classical Validity Turek and Krupnik (2014) Validity Classical Reliability Generalizability Validity Construct validity, External validity, Internal validity Reliability Validity Source: Abdel-Fattah (2015); Chanthes (2021); Finch (2002); Hill and Meagher (1999); Manuell and Graham (2017); Mekawy (2022); Ngadimin et al. (2018); Randall (2012); Rowlands (2005); Thai et al. (2012); Turek and Krupnik (2014). (See full list of references for further reading at the Chapter’s end.) Regardless of variations in criteria, Miles et al. (2014) suggests 13 tactics to generally help validate qualitative research findings: (1) checking for representativeness, (2) checking for researcher effects, (3) triangulating the findings, (4) weighting the evidence, (5) checking the meanings of outliers, (6) using extreme cases, (7) following up surprises, (8) looking for negative evidence, (9) making an if-then test, (10), ruling out spurious relations, (11) replicating a finding, (12) checking out rival explanations, and (13) getting feedback from informants. There are no specific rules on what should be used as suitable tactics. To provide a foreseeing defense of the research dibility, the researcher must anticipate any possible critics of weakness or bad practices of the methods and the research measurements of their choice. See Case 6.1, \"Straussian Grounded-Theory Method: An Illustration\" by Thai et al. (2012), as a practical example for a

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

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 169 Case 6.1 Table: Tactics to Minimize Potential Problems from Data Source, based on Thai et al. (2012, pp.22-23) Sources: Based on Thai et al. (2012, pp.22-23). Explanation: Case 6.1 Table is a practical example of how a grounded theory study declared the awareness of the possible methodological weakness of the method used. Thai et al. (2012, pp. 22-23) claimed using three essential tactics to minimize potential problems from using the grounded theory method to analyze the data sources, including interviews, documentation, and archival records. When conducting, reporting, or publishing qualitative research, the researcher must be able to reflect and pre-evaluate possible weaknesses and suggest possible preventions to any factors that could revalue the research conduct.

170 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 6.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter has stated the necessity of grounded theory research reflecting and evaluating their research conduct and results. Compared to other types of qualitative research, grounded theory is distinctive regarding its various underpinning philosophies. The researcher could discuss and choose the stances from both the positivism and interpretivism paradigms. Also, concerning its variable-oriented analysis procedure, grounded theory is often claimed as a scientific method being able to be evaluated using standard scientific criteria, namely, validity, reliability, and generalizability. In the meantime, considering this is a qualitative method, it can also apply other criteria arguably as suitable by qualitative research tradition. Therefore, there are two propositions for evaluating criteria selection: classical and method-appropriate. This chapter has discussed the application of both propositions in practice. It has also provided critical suggestions for practical tactics grounded theory can claim to stress the rigor and credibility of the research regarding various evaluating criteria. The chapter has concluded that reflecting and evaluating grounded theory is flexible. Researchers need to develop efficient ways to design and manage their studies to fulfill the appropriate criteria of their choice. Also, they need to effectively communicate with the audiences, e.g., research funding bodies, journal editors, and general readers, concerning the well-planned and managerial practice of the study. Finally, this chapter has emphasized that the transparency and trustworthy research design, conduct, and presentation of results are considered the priory to strengthen the study’s credibility. The next part of this book is the concluding remarks on the grounded theory method. Key Terms Classical evaluation criteria, 159 Reliability, 161 Credibility, 158 Research assessment, 158 Generalizability, 162 Trustworthiness, 164 Method-appropriate criteria, 164 Validity, 159

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 171 6.6 Exercises 1. What are classical and method-appropriate criteria for research evaluation? Explain. 2. Do you consider grounded theory a scientific method? Discuss. 3. Do you consider classical criteria suitable for grounded theory? Discuss. 4. What are the criticisms for grounded theory unsuitable for applying classical scientific evaluation criteria? Explain. 5. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the influences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry, finish the tasks below: • Suggest appropriate evaluating criteria and explain the reasons for the selected criteria. • Suggest practical tactics to deliver a grounded theory that meets the selected criteria. 6. Provide examples of ground theory research from the existing literature in your disciplinary areas. Discuss the choices of evaluating criteria of these studies. 7. Discuss the possible management of grounded theory studies which could result in being evaluated as a bad research conduct. Then suggest the preventative procedure.

172 Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study References Abdel-Fattah, M. A. (2015) ‘Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study’, Egyptian Informatics Journal, 16(3), pp. 309–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.eij.2015.07.002. Bitsch, V. (2005) ‘Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria’, Journal of Agribusiness, 345(2016–15096), p. 17. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.59612. Borgstede, M. and Scholz, M. (2021) ‘Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and Replication–A Representationalist View’, Front. Psychol, 12:605191, pp. 1–9. doi: doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.605191. Chanthes, S. (2021) ‘Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand’, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72–81. doi: 10.34190 /ERM.21.066. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Corbetta, P. (2011) Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. Sage. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Core textbook). Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Cypress, B. S. (2017) ‘Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations’, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), pp. 253–263. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 1–32. Finch, J. H. (2002) ‘The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(2), pp. 213–234. doi: 10.1080/13501780210137119. Flick, U. (2019) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 6th edn. SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)).

Chapter 6. Reflecting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Study 173 Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 191–215. Hill, E. and Meagher, G. (1999) Doing ‘Qualitative Research’ in Economics: Two Examples and Some Reflections. Sydney: The Open University (Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences). Kvale, S. (2002) ‘The Social Construction of Validity’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The qualitative inquiry reader. London: Sage, pp. 299–325. Linden, K. L. V. and Palmieri, P. A. (2022) ‘Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study: A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations’, Grounded Theory Review: an International Journal, 20(2), pp. 1–12. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) ‘Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers’, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74–90. Mekawy, M. A. (2022) ‘A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses’ Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19’, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 70(1), pp. 9–27. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Ngadimin, N. F., Mar Iman, A. H. and Raji, F. (2018) ‘Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project’, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS), pp. 1142–1169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018. 05.90. Nowell, L. S. et al. (2017) ‘Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), p. 1609406917733847. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847.

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

PART III Concluding Remarks



C7 A Critical Review of the Methodology 7.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Given that this book has provided a concise guide for designing and Key takeaways of implementing a grounded theory study in practice, the first section the book, page 177 will summarize the key takeaways of each chapter. The second section will present the author’s verdicts on seven myths, often Author’s verdicts on raising critical discussions among students and researchers on using grounded theory grounded theory in economics and management research, based on myths, page 179 over a decade of research and teaching experience. The seven myths concern argumentative issues on how grounded theory studies Critical suggestions should be carried out, including economists and qualitative for students and researchers, a preliminary literature review in a grounded theory researchers, page study, and the requirement of a theoretical framework. The final 186: section will provide critical suggestions for those who have chosen Crucial liteature grounded theory as the basis for their research. It consists of four review critical suggestions offered to help increase the quality of research Grounded theory and strengthen the credibility of the delivery of research results. wrongdoings Ethical manners 7.2 Key Takeaways of the Book Delivery of research results This book aims to offer a concise guide for grounded theory researchers, especially those who are novices, to be able to choose, use, and deliver accepted and knowledgeable grounded theory research outcomes. Each chapter has provided key considerations for using this method practically and appropriately. Critical actions to take throughout the grounded theory study conduct are presented in Table 7.1.

178 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology Table 7.1: Key Takeaways of This Book Chapter Key Takeaways Critical actions to take Chapter 1 Ontology Choosing either positivism/post-positivism or anti- Chapter 2 Epistemology positivism. Chapter 3 Methodology Choosing either positivist or interpretive traditions. Chapter 4 Three ways to use theory Choosing either quantitative, qualitative or mix-methods Chapter 5 Qualitative methods for research. economics and management Choosing either theory-building, theory-testing or iterative Chapter 6 research research. Key indications for Designing the research conduct. Combing qualitative choosing grounded theory techniques is very common. Choosing, or mixing among method various designs: phenomenology, ethnography, narrative Three types of grounded study, case study, action research and grounded theory. theory studies Requiring qualitative method for three specific attributes: Five commonly used iterative research, variable-oriented qualitative research, and qualitative data sources delivering emerging casual explanation as the outcome. Choosing either positivist, pragmatic or constructivist Asking grounded theory grounded theory. research question Selecting appropriate types to be the sources of data: Identifying the unit of interviews, focus group discussions,observations, documents, analysis audio-visual resources or fieldwork notes. Multiple sources Essential roles of the are recommended for triangulating purposes. literature review Forming the question based on critical sensitizing concepts Theoretical sampling and disciplinary perspectives. procedure Clarifying the unit, concerning the research’s objective e.g. Coding strategies individuals, organizations, institutions, sectors, interested Theoretical saturation phenomena, experiences or nations. Selecting and reviewing related literature throughout the Grounded theory as the grounded theory processes are requisite. outcome Data collection and analysis are two interconnecting, 4 techniques for research simultaneous, and ongoing processes in grounded theory triangulations study. CAQDAS 4 coding levels: open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding.. Evaluating criteria for Once there are no new insights found in newly collected data grounded theory study guided by the theoretical sampling technique, the grounded Classical criteria theory study is saturated and ready to deliver the research Method-appropriate criteria outcomes. Specifying either substantive or formal theory being delivered. Choosing or combining the use of data, investigator, theory or methodological triangulation. Using CAQDAS packages is not required but can be very helpful for working as a project clerk to facilitate the challenges of maintaining error-free data and code records and accessing information. Computers cannot replace the researcher’s role, in which sensitivity to the data’s conceptualization is required. Choosing either classical or method-appropriate criteria. A critical rationale for the selected criteria must be provided. Choosing or combining the use of validity, reliability and generalizability to judge grounded theory research. Choosing or combining various alternative criteria e.g. trustworthiness, rigor, transparency, explanatory function or exemplifying quality. Source: the author.

Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 179 7.3 Author’s Verdicts on Grounded Theory Myths The author has often participated in critical discussions with students and colleague, both early-career and those established ones, on the seven myths addressed in this section, throughout over a decade of academic career experience as an economics researcher and as an instructor of a qualitative research methods course at the postgraduate level. Essentially, all the myths have factual origins. However, additional dialogues are always required when students and researchers need a verdict on whether each is right or wrong. Furthermore, the verdict is necessary when a research project is to be embarked on; any uncertain methodological considerations should be answered methodically to increase the credibility of the research conduct and results. Considering the flexible design of qualitative research, focusing on the grounded theory method in particular, this section will deliver the author’s professional verdicts on common myths concerning the grounded theory design and management as a research methodology. It will provide significant philosophical and methodological discussions along with practical considerations relevant to the discussing issues. 7.3.1 Myth 1: Economists and Qualitative Research \"Qualitative methods are As explained in Chapter 1, researchers should not quickly jump to not suitable the final decision without rigorously clarifying the philosophical for economic stances of their studies concerning ontology, epistemology, and research. Rather, methodology. Although it takes a longer contemplation process to mathematical find a suitable method, there is rather a shorter process for ruling out models and when qualitative research is not an appropriate choice. That is, a statistics are.\" qualitative method should not be chosen when at least one of the Verdict: Wrong following criteria is met: • The researcher chooses a classic positivism paradigm that rejects subjective values to include in interpreting social meanings. • The researcher believes in the deductive reasoning approach and chooses to make sense of the studied phenomenon using a theoretical testing procedure. • The researcher prefers methodological techniques that allow the analysis of quantifiable variables. If none of the above conditions are specified, economists are open to choosing either quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches for conducting the research. For example, a study

180 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology positioned in the post-positivism paradigm, which believes in the objectivity of the social phenomenon while claiming to accept the existence of subjective values, can consider using methods other than the quantitative approach. A qualitative approach may be adopted if this study philosophically considers using deductive reasoning with no specification for using quantifiable study techniques. Economic research can employ either quantitative or qualitative methods or both as a mixed methods study. \"The preliminary 7.3.2 Myth 2: Importance of Preliminary Literature literature Review review process is unnecessary for The literature review process is an essential part of doing research. a grounded theory All types of research projects, qualitative and quantitative, need study because the preliminary literature review for several purposes. First, researchers method requires need to identify the research gap to embark on a research project. no pre-existing Second, to design a study, the researchers need to clarify the theories to guide investigative boundary and the unit of analysis. Finally, the the investigation.\" researchers must discuss the linkages of the findings to those already Verdict: Wrong presented in the knowledge field. Therefore, like other research methods, grounded theory study are advised to have a preliminary review of related literature. If researchers are highly aware of possible contamination of theoretical ideas before starting the investigation, they can still select only non-technical in the early stage of their research. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), non-technical literature, such as reports, internal correspondences, or institutional documents, provides general information about the context within which those being studied operates. Therefore, the review of preliminary literature is recommended. It can be used in designing grounded theory studies providing the general background about the substantive context of study rather than the substantive technical ideas. Notwithstanding its inductive and exploratory nature, a grounded theory study is advised to do a preliminary literature review.

Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 181 7.3.3 Myth 3: A Requisite Conceptual Framework \"All research projects, including As discussed in Chapter 1, philosophical discussions in designing an grounded theory appropriate research method for social sciences subjects, which studies, are include economics and management, are complex and complicated. advised to have There is a large variety of research approaches for finding the a conceptual meaning of social reality. To choose a suitable approach for the framework.\" study, researchers need to clarify the philosophical research stances Verdict: Right of their preferred methods and the selected underpinning social reasoning strategies. The requisition of a conceptual or theoretical framework and the purpose of having one depends on the methodological design of the study. All research projects are advised to start with a conceptual framework. Such a framework can serve various research designs, not limiting to only theory-testing studies. Rather, it can also be helpful for deductive research. Some require it for forming a conceptual framework filled will identified variables for theory-testing. For example, quantitative research with deductive reasoning requires a conceptual framework to serve the hypotheses testing of preidentified variables selected from the review of literature relating to the research inquiry. Other studies, especially inductive research, use it as the sources of comparison and analysis. For instance, a grounded theory study with inductive reasoning requires not having any conceptual framework to start the investigation. It only needs such framework to help guiding the specific areas and boundary of the exploratory investigation. Additionally, grounded theory researchers may also develop an initial theoretical framework drawn from the preliminary literature review and use it for comparative purpose against the theoretical development inductively emerged from the research data. In summary, although a conceptual framework is traditionally not a requisite to start the grounded theory processes, it is recommended concerning its benefits to help reinforce the research’s trustworthy conduct. Although it is not a requisite for grounded theory study, it is recommended. It can benefit the practical employment of the method for several reasons, including comparative, argumentative and analytic purposes.

182 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology \"Similar to 7.3.4 Myth 4: The Worldview of Grounded Theory Study most qualitative research, grounded As classified in Chapter 5, there are three types of grounded theory theory study studies1: positivist, pragmatic, and constructivist grounded theory. is rooted in Given this possible research conducts, positivist grounded theory is anti-positivist an objectivist grounded theory. Specifically, this qualitative ontological belief.\" technique is rooted in the post-positivism type of the positivist Verdict: Wrong ontological paradigm. Alternatively, the other two types, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory studies, are rooted in the anti-positivist tradition, which aims at finding out the subjective implications of the social reality as the answer resulting from the interpretation made by the researcher. Considering this variety, a grounded theory researcher may therefore claim the worldview of their study either as rooted in the positivist or anti-positivist paradigm. Post-positivist studies aim to find objective implications, while anti-positivist studies focus on the subjective examination of the social world. A grounded theory study can be rooted in either post-positivism or anti-positivism traditions. \"Grounded theory 7.3.5 Myth 5: Grounded Theory as a Research Approach can only be used in qualitative As known, grounded theory study is a qualitative method. However, research.\" its use is not limited to qualitative research; it can be used in either Verdict: Wrong qualitative or mixed-method research. As previously explained in Chapter 5, when a research project is rooted in the post-positivist paradigm, the researchers’ possible choices for research method broadly cover all the three approaches of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research. Therefore, a grounded theory may be used in a qualitative study or as part of a mixed-method approach for studies rooted in the post-positivist paradigm. Similar to other qualitative approaches used in a mixed method study, the grounded theory may come either before or after the quantitative part of the study. When carried out before the quantitative part, its emerging theory contributes to the study procedure with hypothetical variables. These variables can be used to help construct a proposed theoretical framework in the following quantitative part. Alternatively, when it is designed to be carried out later, the researcher needs to be careful when they make use of the results delivered from the quantitative study part. 1Specially see Section 3 of Chapter 5 for details.