Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research

["Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 183 A key consideration to be aware of is that a quantitative study in economic and management research is a deductive study aiming at theoretical testing of the identi\ufb01ed variables; its results are based on the pre-identi\ufb01ed variables. If a grounded theory is used following the quantitative part, using the tested variables is recommended to help construct the research boundary for the grounded theory study part, not as the proposed variable to be tested. They can also be used for comparative purposes in the constant comparison technique, which is part of the grounded theory analysis procedure. Doing so will allow further discoveries to emerge from the data and not be limited to the identi\ufb01ed variable. However, the researcher needs to be careful about not contradicting the aim of using grounded theory, which seeks the emerging explanation of the studied phenomenon. There are multiple ways to use qualitative grounded theory in mixed-method research as follows: \u2022 First, when this qualitative method is used as the former part of a mixed-method project, the design is known as exploratory research. Its emerging theory contributes to the study procedure with hypothetical variables. \u2022 Secondly, when it is used in the latter part, known as explanatory mixed methods research, variables from the quantitative part are only to be used for sculpturing the investigative boundary of the grounded theory and allowing further non-preidenti\ufb01ed emerging discoveries. \u2022 Alternatively, in convergent research in which qualitative and quantitative studies are equally signi\ufb01cant, the emerging theory can serve the project\u2019s speci\ufb01c objective that chose this qualitative technique. Like other qualitative methods, grounded theory study is a qualitative method that can be used in either qualitative research or mixed methods research projects.","184 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology \\\"A grounded 7.3.6 Myth 6: Multi-Phase Fieldwork theory study always requires Given the iterative process, grounded theory study usually starts with multiple phases of inductive theory-building. The \ufb01rst \ufb01eldwork only serves the early the data collection theory generation. The results cannot claim the completion of the processes.\\\" theoretical building at this stage, although it is regarded as inductive Verdict: Right reasoning, ad the data collection has already been done. Emerging concepts derived at this stage are a simultaneous process as part of the open coding. Although comparable to existing theoretical ideas or variables identi\ufb01ed in other literature reviewed, the conclusion of the study cannot yet be made at this stage. The developed categories with the associated codes at this stage are usually named using comparable variables or terms used by the disciplinary literature. This early stage emerging theory only provides linkage, not contribution, to the knowledge in the \ufb01eld. An additional phase of data collection \ufb01eldwork must be carried out following the initial theory-building stage. The researcher uses the early version of the theory to provide hypothetical variables. These properties will require veri\ufb01cation of their accurate application to the selected substantive area of investigation, hence the revisitation to the \ufb01eld, or probably additional \ufb01eld, depending on the variables used for the theoretical sampling for further data collection. This extra data will be scrutinized for any new insights not previously emerged from the earlier version of the theory. If nothing new, the theory can be saturated. Otherwise, further theoretical sampling and so on. Given the basic picture as explained above, there will be at least two \ufb01eldworks, the more complex conditions of inquiry, such as the contextual conditions or the diversi\ufb01ed attributes or characteristics of those being studied, the possibility of more, and many \ufb01eldworks. Therefore, students and researchers selecting the grounded theory method must be well prepared in terms of time, e\ufb00ort, and resources for the multi-phase \ufb01eldwork. Any insu\ufb03cient preparation can result in research misconduct, e.g., an incomplete study; premature saturation of grounded theory; or, worse, moral hazard being harmful to ethical manners if the researcher tries to force only the already collected data into saturating the theory and claim it as the resulting outcome, either substantive or formal theories. Grounded theory studies always need multi-phase data collection and analysis.","Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 185 7.3.7 Myth 7: Evaluations of Grounded Theory Study \\\"The trinity of reliability, As explained in Chapter 6, the traditional criteria known as the validity, and trinity of reliability, validity, and generalization are not the only generalization recommended for assessing qualitative research; also, alternative are the three measures are advised to use as more appropriate measurements for criteria commonly judging anti-positivist qualitative research, considering its used for judging philosophical underpinnings and di\ufb00erent nature of social science research. inquiries from those in scienti\ufb01c subject areas. These alternative Therefore, a measurements are known as method-appropriate criteria. grounded theory study must A range of method-appropriate criteria is suggested based on adhere to these that part of the research procedure; researchers must always fundamental methodically re\ufb02ect on their studies to assert the credibility of the quality criteria.\\\" study results. When researchers consider the generic criteria Verdict: Wrong unsuitable for their methodological choices, they often re\ufb02ect on their studies by suggesting the alternatives they consider more appropriate. For example, Chapter 6 of this book provides an example of a constructivist grounded theory discussing the employment of the grounded theory method in economic research and then proposes three measurement tools, namely the rigor and transparency of the research process, the explainability of the research conduct, and exempli\ufb01able results. An additional example, rather than applying traditional criteria to judge the quality of grounded theory research, Glaser (1978) suggests the criteria of \ufb01t, work, relevance, and modi\ufb01able. As another example, Denzin and Lincoln (2008) address trustworthiness and authenticity as the criteria for constructivist studies. Another example is Corbetta (2003), who suggests a quality criterion of qualitative research as the quality of speci\ufb01city to be used for qualitative results against the use of generalization as an appropriate measure. A key concern is that when method-appropriate criteria are used instead of the traditional criteria of reliability, validity, and generalizability, researchers must clarify critical discussions explaining the philosophical reasons for not employing those conventional scienti\ufb01c criteria. Like other qualitative research, criteria for evaluating grounded theory studies are not limited to the traditional measures commonly employed for scienti\ufb01c studies; there are alternative measurements known as method-appropriate criteria.","186 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 7.4 Critical Suggestions for Students and Researchers Misconceptions of As seen in all the previous chapters and those practical examples the grounded theory provided in the chapters\u2019 appendices, it is recognizable that method often cause grounded theory study now has its place in economics and negative criticism of management research. However, criticism against the use of this using the technique. method remains. Many grounded theorists and scholars suggested Similar to other that this is due to several misconceptions regarding the methodology qualitative research (Goulding, 2002; Charmaz, 2014; Chanthes, 2021). Additionally, a instruments, the common criticism concerning the role of the researcher as a research researcher as the instrument in qualitative research (Creswell and Creswell, 2017; research instrument Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) raised questionable merit of using is inevitably qualitative methods in general, hence the grounded theory study as a challenged for merit qualitative technique. Additionally, as pointed out by Goulding and validity. (2002), another criticism on judging the use of the grounded theory method is due to the split of the methodological procedure between the two originators, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, which in e\ufb00ect has resulted in the distinct directions of how the method is to be adopted. Therefore, in addition to speci\ufb01cally clarifying the chosen direction and the underpinning research philosophies, grounded theory researchers must tackle the challenges of proo\ufb01ng the research merit relevant to the researcher as to whether regarded as a valid instrument. This section will provide four critical suggestions for students and researchers who adopt the grounded theory method for their research. The section comprises four suggestions: the literature review is crucial, beware of grounded theory wrongdoings, maintaining ethical manners and successful delivery of research results. 7.4.1 The Literature Review is Crucial Although Glaser (1992, p.31) states that \\\"there is a need not to review any of the literature in the substantive area under study,\\\" it does not mean that grounded theory researchers should not review any literature at all. The focus of this statement is the substantive area under study, meaning the literature technically, e.g., academically or theoretically, related to the inquired areas of study. The traditional idea of not reviewing any of the literature and the precaution of contaminating theoretical concepts prior to the study by Glaser (1992) has increasingly been criticized as impractical. Modern grounded theorists recommend the signi\ufb01cance","Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 187 of the literature review, both technical and non-technical, throughout the grounded theory processes.2. However, 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. Two types of literature to review: technical and nontechnical. Researchers concerning the bene\ufb01ts of reviewing both literature types are advised to manage the contamination, especially with a preliminary review of technical literature. The skill of sensitizing the emerging theory grounding in the data is crucial. The researcher must practice not letting their theoretical sensitivity be guided by any existing theories but the data. They need to maintain the practice throughout the grounded theory processes, even in the later stages of inductive reasoning and theory building. They must constantly compare their constructed theory with the related technical literature. Therefore, the skills to develop the immune theoretical sensitivity can be used only in these later stages but also in the early stage when they review the preliminary technical literature. Additionally, the adequate review of technical literature helped strengthen the proposed idea for conducting research. It presents the researcher\u2019s critical argument on how the project is expectedly to contribute to the knowledge and bene\ufb01t academically and practically. Most funding bodies prefer to fund such promising projects. Hence, the preliminary review of both technical and non-technical literature can help increase a promising proposal and enhance the project prospect and, once it completes, its academic and practical values. 2Speci\ufb01cally see section 5.4 of Chapter 5 for details. Grounded theory studies are advised to review related literature in three ways: the preliminary literature review, during the data collection, and analysis and \ufb01nalizing the theory development.","188 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology Grounded theory 7.4.2 Beware of Grounded Theory Wrongdoings wrongdoings are common errors in Concerning the generic grounded theory processes, however, some grounded theory theoretical sampling e\ufb00orts may not be particularly theoretical. In research. this case, researchers may not theorize the signi\ufb01cance of an intriguing discovery. They fail to push the limits of a substantive \ufb01nding and answer the question what is next?. This \ufb01nding belongs to what more extensive, more abstract theoretical category or problem? Good researchers routinely follow up on intriguing earlier codes, but theoretical sampling requires more. Conduct theoretical sampling after de\ufb01ning and tentatively conceptualizing pertinent ideas that indicate areas to investigate further with additional data. As pointed out by Charmaz (2014, p.107), there are four pitfalls commonly happening in grounded theory research, including \\\"premature closure of analytic categories, trite or redundant categories, over-reliance or overstatement for elaborating and checking categories, and unfocused on unspeci\ufb01ed categories.\\\" These pitfalls often occur during the theoretical sampling procedure, in which the researcher can be overwelled with the sophisticated simultaneous work of coding, analysis, and trying to derive emerging theoretical concepts from guiding the following processes of theory testing, verifying the recurring loops to obtain the theoretical saturation. Four typical pitfalls in grounded theory: \u2022 premature closure of analytic categories, \u2022 trite or redundant categories, \u2022 over-reliance or overstatement for elaborating and checking categories, and \u2022 unfocused on unspeci\ufb01ed categorized outcomes outcome. Source: Charmaz (2014, p.107). Common mistakes in founded theory often concern two issues: inadequate data and insu\ufb03cient interrogation. For instance, Goulding (2002), states that premature closure often happens when the researcher leaves the \ufb01eld too early. This problem is often caused by the under-analysis of data. The grounded theory analysis procedure consists of multiple coding strategies classi\ufb01ed by the level of abstraction. That is, the method requires the researcher to progress through a series of stages, beginning with in vivo codes","Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 189 (codes derived directly from the data), then to more abstract or second-level categorical codes, and \ufb01nally to conceptual and theoretical codes, which serve as the theory\u2019s building blocks. At each of these levels, the theory is re\ufb01ned by the incorporation of abstract concepts covering behavioral variation. Therefore, while premature closure is typically associated with leaving the \ufb01eld prematurely, it can also occur when a researcher collects an abundance of data but fails to move beyond merely describing the data\u2019s contents. As a result, the grounded theory is based solely on participant descriptions and not on conceptualizations. In order to provide meaning and explanation of the behavior, it is crucial that the researcher extracts concepts from the data and explains them theoretically. Common mistakes in grounded theory concern two problems: inadequate data and insu\ufb03cient interrogation. An e\ufb00ective tactic suggested to prevent possible grounded theory wrongdoing is o\ufb00ered by Goulding (2002), who insists on the researcher being persistent with line-by-line analysis. Although time-consuming, this tedious practice helps the researcher to be thoroughly familiar with the data, which is essential to develop their theoretical sensitivity. They need to understand the data more profoundly than the surface description, such as the exact interview statements of the participants. That is, they must be able to gain the most salient factors, which cannot be illuminated by having seen as only one particular data source. If the researcher commits any under-analysis as early as the open coding level, it will lead to even worse consequences in the higher coding levels. 7.4.3 Maintaining Ethical Conduct Qualitative researchers must always remember that they are the instrument of their research. In a general sense, a good instrument is an important factor for the success of any work. Although, in reality, good instruments do not necessarily ensure a good result. The sure thing is imperfect, insu\ufb03cient, or inappropriate instruments most likely guarantee the bad ones. In terms of research method, the basic constituent of a good researcher is an ethical one, in addition to other subjective features, such as professions and experiences. As emphasized multiple times throughout this book, research ethics is crucial. According to the ongoing debates, the issue of how qualitative research should be evaluated is problematic, and due to","190 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology assessing the primary instrument, which refers to the researcher, cannot be done peripherally. One of the critical debating aspects concerns the researcher\u2019s ethical manners. As asserted by Bitsch (2005), Evaluation criteria for qualitative research cannot be easily transferred from quantitative research. To adequately address qualitative research, the criteria for scienti\ufb01c rigor must be revised. Additionally, di\ufb00erent criteria, such as research ethics, responsibility, and outcomes, must be taken into account. Therefore, reliable and trustworthy research requires ethical practices throughout the entire research process. Ethical manners are \u201ca moral enterprise\u201d of the research conduct (Kvale, 2002, p.109); it makes the research valuable. Christians (2003, pp.217-219) recommends four features of ethical code: the use of informed consent, no deception involved, the assurance of participant privacy and con\ufb01dentially, and the accuracy of data being processed. Ethical manners are \u201ca moral enterprise\u201d of the research conduct (Kvale, 2002, p.109). 7.4.4 Successful Delivery of Research Results As seen in all the chapters of this book, the provision of grounded theory examples often came with visual representations such as tables, graphs, diagrams, illustrations, and \ufb02owcharts. The common characteristics of qualitative data are rich, \ufb02exible, detailed ununi\ufb01ed, and instructed. Also, the data comes from various sources such as interviews, focus group discussions, observation notes, documents, literature, or visual-audio materials. To transform this data into a more uni\ufb01ed form for analysis purposes, grounded theory researchers often transcript them into texts, then process them to the production of results and the research report. Relying on textual representation may not e\ufb00ectively communicate the research, even with well-written ones. Understanding qualitative research, e.g., its designs, processes, results, and the discussions of the results, in textual format requires tremendous concertation and energy from the audiences. Therefore, grounded theory students and researchers should learn and practice not only doing research but also visualizing skills by studying diverse grounded theory literature and always keep in mind that practice always makes perfect.","Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 191 7.5 Chapter Summary and Key Terms Additionally, in many cases concerning economics and management research inquiries, using quantitative research techniques alone may not be enough to look into the social problems being asked about, especially if the thing being studied has properties that can\u2019t be measured.Grounded theory can therefore be helpful when used as a qualitative method or as part of mixed-methods research. This concluding chapter has provided a critical review of the grounded theory methodology. First, it discussed seven myths commonly arising in debates among grounded theory researchers at all experiential levels, from research students to early-career and even established researchers. Based on over a decade of practical research experience, the author has provided critical verdicts on the seven myths. The chapter then provided critical recommendations for students and researchers on how to conduct credible grounded theory studies, emphasizing four points: the importance of conducting a literature review, being wary of grounded theory errors, maintaining ethical conduct, and successfully delivering research results. Key Terms Ethical conduct, 189 Grounded theory wrongdoings, 188 Grounded theory evaluations, 185 Multi-phase data collection, 184 Final Remarks Explanations provided throughout the chapters of this book have shown that while the grounded theory method is acknowledged to be \ufb02exible and complex, the manner in which it is carried out can be appealing to qualitative researchers looking for a method that combines the strength of scienti\ufb01c logic with the \ufb02exibility of qualitative research. Additionally, in many cases concerning economics and management research inquiries, using quantitative research techniques alone may not be enough to look into the social problems being asked about, especially if the thing being studied has properties that can\u2019t be measured. Grounded theory can therefore be helpful when used as a qualitative method or as part of mixed methods research. The readers of this book, Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research, are recommended to use the book as an essential guide as they are considering or adopting the grounded theory method. Also, keep in mind that selecting an appropriate method and designing practical research are both time-consuming","192 Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology processes. The reader should use this book jointly with other general qualitative research textbooks to obtain broader insights into considering the choice to conduct qualitative research. Essentially, this book can help students and researchers improve their research skills and produce important, high-quality works based on grounded theory. 7.6 Exercises 1. How can the grounded theory method be used in mix-methods research? Discuss. 2. What is insu\ufb03cient interrogation in grounded theory study? Explain how it can cause a problem for the theory building. 3. Is it possible for a grounded theory study to conduct a single \ufb01eldwork? Discuss. 4. What are the four common pitfalls in doing grounded theory research? Explain. 5. Explain the causes of premature closer in grounded theory study. 6. What tactics can grounded theory researchers use to prevent any potential pitfalls or wrongdoings of the method? 7. 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: \u2022 Discuss signi\ufb01cant ethical conducts to involve with your study. \u2022 Plan the investigative framework and the unit of analysis using visual representation. \u2022 Discuss possible tactics to prevent the problem of under- analysis of the grounded theory construction.","Chapter 7. A Critical Review of the Methodology 193 References Bitsch, V. (2005) \u2018Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria\u2019, Journal of Agribusiness, 345(2016\u201315096), p. 17. doi: 10.22004\/ag.econ.59612. Chanthes, S. (2021) \u2018Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\u2019, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72\u201381. doi: 10.34190\/ ERM.21.066. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Christians, C. G. (2003) \u2018Ethics and Politics\u2019, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 208\u2013243. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Kvale, S. (2002) \u2018The Social Construction of Validity\u2019, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Qualitative Inquiry Reader. London: Sage, pp. 299\u2013325. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.","","Glossary Action research is a research design involving the researcher\u2019s participation or intervention while observing the phenomenon under the study. Advanced memo in grounded theory study is the track records of the researcher\u2019s progressing analytical abstractions. Writing memos at this stage requires the researcher to trace and categorize the data incorporated into the research topic. Anti-positivism is an epistemological paradigm believing in subjective meanings of the social reality. Audiovisual resources refer to recorded information in the forms of photographs, works of art, videotapes, internet homepages, emails, text messages, social media texts, or any type of sound. Axial coding is the second level of grounded theory coding. Axial codes are themes of connections and relationships that emerged across the developed categories. CAQDAS is a generic label of Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software. It refers to software applications provided by various vendors as the packages to help organize qualitative data more e\ufb00ectively and manage the complexity of the qualitative data analysis. Case study is a research design that essentially requires a bounded system, or the research\u2019s boundary, which is a distinctive feature that makes a case study di\ufb00erent from other research methods. Classical evaluation criteria are the three measures of research evaluation\u2014validity, reliability, and generalization\u2014that are used to judge the credibility of research. Classical grounded theory is a type of qualitative method rooted in the post-positivist paradigm, which believes that the social world is an objective reality that exists externally. It is also widely referred to as the Glaserian grounded theory. Constant comparison is a central aspect of the grounded theory method, considering that it applies throughout the grounded theory analysis. 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.","196 Glossary Constructivism is an epistemological paradigm perceiving social knowledge as subjective, and the observer of it is included as a social agent. Constructivist grounded theory is a grounded theory study being more decent to the anti-positivist tradition, often claimed by most qualitative researchers, and views the social world subjectively. This type of grounded theory method believes that social knowledge as being constructed by both researcher and research participant to interpret the empirical evidence within the research context. Convergent mixed methods is interactive mixed-method research. It perceives quantitative and qualitative components to have equal value and importance in helping the researcher achieve the research objectives. The production of research results is to be integrated during, throughout, and until the end of the research process. Credibility is an essential quality of reliable research. The credibility of qualitative research can be evaluated diversely using di\ufb00erent criteria, which are commonly divided into two groups: classical and method-appropriate criteria. Critical realism is a type of anti-positivist ontological stance which separates the real world from the observable world. It believes that the explanation of social reality can only be the result of comprehensive systems used by those who observe it. Data analysis in grounded theory, the data analysis is carried out simultaneously with data collection, known as the theoretical sampling procedure. Throughout the grounded theory study, the emerging theory was simultaneously and continuously validated through four coding techniques, namely open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding. Data collection in grounded theory is carried out simultaneously with the data analysis, known as the theoretical sampling procedure. To collect the data, the researcher will use the emerging theory to guide further data collection required for testing the theory until it reaches saturation, meaning no indication of more data is needed to test the theory. Data instrumentation is a collection of the researcher\u2019s actions for performing the research data collection. The researcher needs to decide on suitable sources of research data to be collected. Data triangulation is a type of research triangulating strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes. It refers to the researchers using various data sources instead of using only a single source, or type, of data. Deductive reasoning is a theory-testing approach aiming at theory veri\ufb01cation, either as accepted or rejected, using the research data from the \ufb01eldwork. Direct observations is a type of observation with a setting which requires the researcher to observe without interacting with the objects or people under the study in the","Glossary 197 setting. This technique is often conducted in public \ufb01eldwork, hence also known as public observation. Documentary analysis is a systematic process for studying or assessing papers. Dcument analysis needs the examination and interpretation of evidence to elicit meaning, gain insight, and develop empirical knowledge. Early memo in grounded theory study is a record of what the researcher sees happening in the data. At this early stage, the researcher writes memos to explore and \ufb01ll out open codes. Emerging theory is a type of theory obtained using the grounded theory method as the researcher logically extracts the emerging concepts gradually developing from the lower level of open coding towards the higher level of abstraction when the theory saturates. Emic is the insider\u2019s viewpoint. The researchers share their values in the interpretation of social meanings. Epistemology is a type of research philosophical underpinning that concerns the relationship between the researcher and those being researched. Ethical conduct is requirment of social researchers who conduct research on human subjects. There are four common features of ethical conduct that every research project must follow: the use of informed consent; no researcher\u2019s deception involvement; the assurance of participant privacy and con\ufb01dentiality; and the accuracy of data processing. Ethnography is a research paradigm aiming to examine the implicit meanings of human experiences and behaviors in the studied phenomenon or social settings. The result of phenomenology is a holistic presentation of experiential descriptions based on the experiences of both the researchers and those observed. Etic is the outsider\u2019s viewpoint. The researchers attempt to exclude their values from the interpretation of social meanings. Explanatory mixed methods is a quantitative dominant mixed method research starting with the quantitative phase followed by the qualitative phase. Exploratory mixed methods is a qualitative dominant mixed method research starting with the qualitative phase followed by the quantitative phase. Fieldwork note is a descriptive and analytic record kept by the researcher while visiting the research site or conducting \ufb01eldwork. Such notes are always required as part of the grounded theory analysis procedure concerning the researcher\u2019s presence to record signi\ufb01cant incidents as they visit the \ufb01eldwork site.","198 Glossary Focus group discussions is a type of in-depth interview used to collect qualitative data. This data collection technique requires the presence of a facilitator or moderator during a focus group discussion. The researcher facilitates or moderates a group conversation among participants rather than between the researcher and participants. Formal theory is a higher level theory with higher explanatory power across a range of situations. The theory construction usually involves collecting and analyzing data across various realities and settings. Generalizability is a classical measurement used to make judgments about the credibility of research concerning how widely a study\u2019s results can be used. Glaserian grounded theory is a classical positivist grounded theory believing in post-positivist ontology and epistemology. Grounded theory is a research method employing the scienti\ufb01c logic of systematic and logical analysis in qualitative research. The method focuses on emerging theory development from systemically gathered and analyzed data. Grounded theory evaluations are measurements used for assessing the credibility of grounded theory research. Two common choices are the classical research assessments of validity, reliability, and generalizability. The other choice is the preference for using method-appropriate criteria. Grounded theory process is an iterative qualitative research procedure that includes the theoretical sampling technique, constant comparison processes, and theoretical saturation of the developing theory. The research outcome of this process is either a formal or substantive theory. Grounded theory wrongdoings are common errors in grounded theory research. There are four common wrongdoings: premature closure, redundant categories, over-redundant elaborating categories, and unfocused categorized outcomes. Hermeneutics is an interpretive research paradigm focusing on interpreting and understanding texts. Inductive reasoning is a theory-building approach seeking emergent explanations guided by the data to build into theoretical grounds. Interpretive constructivism is a type of interpretive epistemology which believes in subjective determination with the attached subjective insights of both the researcher and those being studied in the construction of theory. Interpretive hermeneutics is a type of interpretive epistemology attempting to accuire acceptable knowledge through logical text processing of questioning, making hypotheses, verifying the hypotheses, making arguments, explaining and generalizing the social interpretation.","Glossary 199 Interpretive phenomenology is a type of interpretive epistemology which believes that social reality is the understanding of the nature of human experiences and events as they are directly and immediately experienced. Interpretive pragmatism is a type of interpretive epistemology which believes in objective determination with the attached subjective insights in the construction of theory. Interpretivism is an epistemological tradition in the anti-positivism paradigm believing in subjective meanings obtained through the interpretation of the observable social reality. Investigator triangulation is a type of research triangulating strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes. Using this strategy, the researcher requests additional assistance from other researchers to work as a team on the same project. Iterative process is theory-building reasoning requiring an interplay of deductive and inductive reasoning approaches. Literature review in grounded theory is the requisite process throughout the preliminary, during, and \ufb01nalizing of the study. There are two types of literature to be reviewed, technical and non-technical. Technical literature refers to speci\ufb01c disciplinary research articles, whereas non-technical literature refers to descriptive documents providing general information about those under studies, such as reports, internal correspondences, and institutional records. Method-appropriate criteria are alternative research evaluation criteria that concern the speci\ufb01c individuality and speci\ufb01city of the qualitative research processes, which could be di\ufb00erently designed across di\ufb00erent projects. Methodological triangulation is a type of research triangulating strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes. It refers to the use of multiple, instead of a single, methods, for the investigation of one speci\ufb01c inquiry. Methodology is a type of research philosophical underpinning which concerns how the researcher can go and \ufb01nd out what they believe can be known. Mixed methods research is a research method combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. Multi-phase data collection is a common activity in the theoretical sampling process of the grounded theory method. The researcher usually enters the \ufb01rst phase of the data collection process to collect the data for the initial development of an emerging theory. Then the developed theory will be used to guide further data collections used for testing the theory. The process is repeated until the study reaches a point called theoretical saturation, which is when no new information can be learned from the new data. Narrative study is a research paradigm traditionally used in psychology. Its use has been extended to a broader range of social sciences research aiming to explore subjective perceptions in human experiences.","200 Glossary Non-professional documents are descriptive documents required as the sources of secondary research data. These documents are virtually no or minimal conceptualizations. Observations can be either quantitative or qualitative research tools. Qualitative observation in economics and management also allows the involvement of quantitative features, such as quanti\ufb01able data, statistics, and mathematical models, to serve as inputs for models and testing grounds for ideas and conceptual re\ufb01nement. Ontology is a type of research philosophical underpinning which concerns the form and nature of reality. Open coding is the \ufb01rst level of abstraction for organizing qualitative data into a broad initial range of categories. Open codes are early code names conceptually organized into categories. Participant observation is a formal type involve in the setting under study as both observers and participants. This technique is often used by action research which requires the researcher\u2019s participation while analytically observing other participants in the setting. Phenomenology is a research paradigm aiming to examine the implicit meanings of human experiences and behaviors in the studied phenomenon or social settings. The result of phenomenology is a holistic presentation of experiential descriptions based on the experiences of both the researchers and those observed. Positivism is a traditional ontological and epistemological paradigm believing in objective and external reality of the worldview. Positivist epistemology is a philosophical tradition of thinking about knowledge that focuses on using scienti\ufb01c methods to look at the world in an objective way. Positivist ontology is a philosophical tradition that views the world as objective and external. In social research, there are two ontological paradigms rooted in this tradition: one is positivism, and the other is post-positivism. Post-positivism is an epistemological paradigm believing in objective meanings of the social reality while accepting imperfect objectivity in social studies while retaining the positivist underpinning beliefs. Pragmatic grounded theory is a grounded theory study rooted in the pragmatism paradigm instead of the original stance of positivism. While similarly claiming the post-positivist ontology, pragmatic grounded theory is also referred to as an interpretive grounded theory to highlight the contrast from the classical grounded theory and believes in the positivist epistemology. Pragmatic research is a research design which perceives choosing a speci\ufb01c ontological stance as unnecessary to social research. It rather concentrates on explanatory and","Glossary 201 methodological concerns, which the combination of positivist and anti-positivist ontological stances may combine as the researcher attempts to make sense of a social inquiry. Pragmatism is an epistemological tradition in the anti-positivism paradigm believing in practical research philosophies not necessarily limited to single approaches to interpreting the meanings of the social reality. Professional documents refer to research reports, articles, or disciplinary literature. Empirical research does not use these document types as the data. Instead, they only serve disciplinary knowledge discussions and be used for reference purposes. Qualitative research is a research method rooted in various philosophical traditions to allow \ufb02exible designs for investigating non-quanti\ufb01able variables and complex social realities through multiple worldview lenses. Quantitative research is a research method rooted in the positivist paradigm and relies the investigation on quanti\ufb01able variables and scienti\ufb01c approaches. Reliability is a classical measurement used to make judgments about the credibility of research. Reliability refers to the repeatability of the research. That is, when using the same conduct, the same outcomes are expected to derive. Research assessment is a critical procedure for re\ufb02ecting the credibility of research by applying various criteria developed by the researcher as appropriate to the nature and characteristics of the study. Research triangulations are additional strategyies to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomesThere are four triangulating strategies commonly used in social research, including data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theoretical triangulation, and methodological triangulation. Selective coding is the third level of grounded theory. Selective codes are hypothetical relations across axial codes and their associated categories. Semi-structured interview is a type of qualitative data source. The data is collected requiring the researcher, or the interviewer, to prepare a pre-determined content of a formal conversation to stimulate emerging data generation under the prede\ufb01ned scope of the content. Straussian grounded theory is interpretive pragmatic grounded theory seeing social reality as multiple and relatively determined and allowing pragmatic interpretation in the investigative procedure. Structured interview is a type of qualitative data source. The data is collected as the researcher uses standardized questions listed for closed \ufb01xed responses and allow open-ended answers.","202 Glossary Substantive theory is a lower level theory constructed as a hypothetical explanation applicable to speci\ufb01c research settings such as particular situations, cases, circumstances, or contextual conditions. Theoretical coding is the highest level of abstraction in the grounded theory coding procedure. Theoretical codes are holistic abstractions of hypothetical relations drawn from the selective coding. Theoretical sampling is a type of purposive sampling, also known as purposeful sampling. The sampling technique needs no speci\ufb01c sample size as it starts because this procedure is expected to be multiple and ongoing until the research outcomes are eventually \ufb01nalized, known as a saturated grounded theory. Theoretical saturation is the ultimate point of the grounded theory analysis procedure. It refers to the point at which the researcher reaches the point at which gathering more data gives no new insights about the emerging theory that explains the phenomenon. Theoretical triangulation is a type of research triangulating strategy to enhance the credibility of research and its outcomes. It is the technique in which researchers pursue and test the developed theory in various areas or use multiple phases to test the developed theory. Theory-building is an inductive reasoning procedure for conducting research. This type of research requires the researcher to start with speci\ufb01c observations, identify hypothesized patterns, and derive conceptions from the data that are then used to form a theory. Theory-testing is a deductive reasoning procedure for conducting research. This type of research requires the researcher to begin with variables selected from existing theories to form a conceptual framework and identify testable hypotheses. The research \ufb01ndings are either to accept or reject the hypotheses. Trustworthiness is the assessment measure used for emphasizing the quality, authenticity, and truthfulness of the \ufb01ndings of qualitative research. It is commonly used as an alternative measure to validity, which is a classical criterion for research evaluation. Unit of Analysis is the main subject or entity on whom the researcher intends to comment in the study. The unit of analysis may be individuals, groups, nations, organizations, technologies, social phenomena, \ufb01rms, countries, cities and such. Unstructured interview is a type of qualitative data source. The data is collected through relaxed, casual conversations in which the subjects may not even be aware that they are being questioned. Validity is a classical measurement used to make judgments about the credibility of research. Validity refers to the accuracy of how the research is conducted and delivers the results.","References Abdel-Fattah, Manal A (2015), \u2018Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: a Comparative Study\u2019, Egyptian Informatics Journal 16(3), 309\u2013327. URL: https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S1110866515000377 \u00c5ge, L. (2014), \u2018Grounded Theory Methodology: Positivism, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism\u2019, The Qualitative Report pp. 1599\u20131615. Alammar, F. M., A. Intezari, A. Cardow and D. J. Pauleen (2018), \u2018Grounded Theory in Practice: Novice Researchers\u2019 Choice Between Straussian and Glaserian\u2019, Journal of Management Inquiry 28(2), 228\u2013245. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1056492618770743 Bailesteanu, G. (2009), \u2018Hermeneutics and Economics\u2019, Timisoara Journal of Economics 2(3(7)), 121\u2013128. Ballou, R H (2004), Business Logistics\/supply Chain Management: Planning, Organizing, and Controlling the Supply Chain, Pearson\/Prentice Hall. Bitsch, V. (2005), \u2018Qualitative Research: A Grounded Theory Example and Evaluation Criteria\u2019, Journal of Agribusiness 345(2016-15096), 17. URL: http:\/\/ageconsearch.umn.edu\/record\/59612 Borgstede, M. and M. Scholz (2021), \u2018Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and Replication\u2013A Representationalist View\u2019, Front. Psychol 12:605191, 1\u20139. Bowen, G. (2009), \u2018Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method\u2019, Qualitative Research Journal 9, 27\u201340. Braun, V., V. Clarke and D. Gray (2017), \u2018Collecting textual, media and virtual data in qualitative research\u2019. Bryant, A. (2017), Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice, Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2021), Social Research Methods, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.","204 References Burgess, R G (2015), Field Research : A Sourcebook and Field Manual, Routledge. Cassiani, S H, M H Caliri and N T Pel\u00e1 (1996), \u2018Grounded theory as an approach to interpretive research\u2019, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem 4(3), 75\u201388. Chanthes, S. (2010), Delivering Academic Services at Regional Level: a Grounded Theory Study of Thai Academics. PhD Thesis, 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 \u2018European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies\u2019, Academic Conferences International Limited, Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72\u201381. Chanthes, S. and P. Sriboonlue (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 \u2018ECIE 2021 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vol 1\u2019, Academic Conferences limited, Pafos, Cyprus, pp. 194\u2013203. Charmaz, K. (2014), Constructing Grounded Theory, Introducing Qualitative Methods series, SAGE Publications. Chevalier, Jacques and Daniel Buckles (2019), Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry, Routledge. Chia, R. (2002), The Production of Management Knowledge: Philosophical Underpinnings of Research Design, in D.Partington, ed., \u2018Essential Skills for Management Research\u2019, SAGE Publications, pp. 1\u201319. Christians, C. G. (2003), Ethics and Politics, in N. K.Denzin and Y. S.Lincoln, eds, \u2018The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues\u2019, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 208\u2013243. Coast, J (2017), Qualitative Methods for Health Economics, G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, Rowman & Little\ufb01eld International Limited. Collins, H (2018), Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries, Bloomsbury Academic. Corbetta, P. (2011), Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques, Sage. Corbin, J and A Strauss (2015), Basics of Qualitative Research, number v. 14 in \u2018Core textbook\u2019, SAGE Publications. Costa, A P, A Moreira, M C S\u00e1nchez-G\u00f3mez and S Wa-Mbaleka (2022), Computer Supported Qualitative Research: New Trends in Qualitative Research, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Springer International Publishing.","References 205 Creswell, J. W. and J. D. Creswell (2017), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. and V. L. Plano Clark (2017), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. Currall, S. C. and A. J. Towler (2003), Research methods in management and organizational research: toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques, in A.Tashakkori, C.Teddlie and C. B.Teddlie, eds, \u2018Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research\u2019, SAGE Publications, pp. 513\u2013526. Cypress, B.S. (2017), \u2018Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations\u2019, Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 36(4), 253\u2013263. Denzin, N. K. and Y. S. Lincoln (2017), Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research, in N. K.Denzin and Y. S.Lincoln, eds, \u2018Handbook of Qualitative Research\u2019, 5th edn, Handbook of Qualitative Research, SAGE Publications, chapter 1, pp. 1\u201332. Dumez, Herv\u00e9 and Alain Jeunema\u00eetre (2005), \u2018The narrative approach in economics\u2019, Revue Economique 56, 983\u20131006. Easterby-Smith, Mark, Richard Thorpe and Paul R Jackson (2015), Management and Business Research, 5th edn, SAGE Publications. Finch, John H (2002), \u2018The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory\u2019, Journal of Economic Methodology 9(2), 213\u2013234. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13501780210137119 Flick, U (2019), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 6th edn, SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Advances in the methodology of grounded theory, Sociology Press. Glaser, B G (1992), Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Emergence vs. forcing, Sociology Press. Glaser, B G and A L Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Observations (Chicago, Ill.), Aldine. Gold, R (1958), \u2018Roles in Sociological Field Observations\u2019, Social Forces 36(3), 217\u2013223. URL: http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/2573808 Gomm, R. (2008), Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction, Bloomsbury Academic. Gould, S. J. (1995), \u2018Researcher Introspection as a Method in Consumer Research: Applications, Issues, and Implications\u2019, Journal of Consumer Research 21(4), 719\u2013722.","206 References Goulding, C. (2002), Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers, SAGE Publications. Gray, David (2014), Doing Research in the Real World, 3rd edition, SAGE Publications. Greene, J. C., V. J. Caracelli and W. F. Graham (1989), \u2018Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs\u2019, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11(3), 255\u2013274. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/01623737011003255 Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (2017), Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Con\ufb02uences, in N. K.Denzin and Y. S.Lincoln, eds, \u2018Handbook of Qualitative Research\u2019, SAGE Publications, pp. 191\u2013215. Hammersley, M. and P. Atkinson (2019), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 4th edn, Routledge. Hill, E. and G. Meagher (1999), Doing \u2018Qualitative Research\u2019 in Economics: Two Examples and Some Re\ufb02ections, Presented at the Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Open University, Sydney. Hughes, J. A. and W. W. Sharrock (2016), The Philosophy of Social Research, Longman Social Research Series, Taylor & Francis. Ivanov, Milen (2020), Digital Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Become a Challenge?, in Y.Baghdadi, HarfoucheA. and M.Musso, eds, \u2018ICT for an Inclusive World. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation\u2019, Springer, Cham, pp. 581\u2013590. Jemna, L. M. (2016), \u2018Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods\u2019, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law 9(9), 154\u2013167. Johnson, R. Burke., Anthony. J. Onwuegbuzie and Lisa .A. Turner (2007), \u2018Toward a De\ufb01nition of Mixed Methods Research\u2019, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1, 112\u2013133. Kaushik, Vibha and Christine A Walsh (2019), \u2018Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research\u2019. Kawulich, B. (2012), Collecting data through observation, McGraw Hill, pp. 150\u2013160. Killick, Anna (2021), \u2018Not \u2018My Economy\u2019: a Political Ethnographic Study of Interest in the Economy\u2019, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 24(1), 171\u2013186. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/13691481211007064 Kincheloe, J. L. and P. McLaren (2011), Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Kolkitchaiwan, P. and P. Siriwong (2016), \u2018The Study of The De\ufb01nition And Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk for Premium Soy Milk: a Study of Grounded Theory\u2019, Journal of Nakornratchasima College 10(2), 72\u201384.","References 207 Kumar, R (2010), Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, SAGE Publications. Kvale, S. (2002), The Social Construction of Validity, in N. K.Denzin and Y.Lincoln, eds, \u2018The Qualitative Inquiry Reader\u2019, Sage, London, pp. 299\u2013325. Kyrychok, A. (2018), \u2018The Philosophy of positivism in economic science\u2019, Science and Education a New Dimension VI(168), 53\u201356. LeCompte, Margaret Diane and Jean J. Schensul (2010), Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, 2nd edn, AltaMira Press, Plymouth. Lee, F S and B Cronin (2016), Qualitative and Ethnographic Methods in Economics, in F.Lee and B.Cronin, eds, \u2018Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Heterodox Economics\u2019, Handbooks of research methods and applications, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 135\u2013164. Levers, Merry-Jo (2013), \u2018Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence\u2019, Sage Open 3. Linden, K. L. V. and P. A. Palmieri (2022), \u2018Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study: A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations\u2019, Grounded Theory Review: an International Journal 20(2), 1\u201312. Lohse, S. (2017), \u2018Pragmatism, Ontology, and Philosophy of the Social Sciences in Practice\u2019, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 47(1), 3\u201327. Maas, H. and M. Morgan (2013), \u2018Observation and Observing in Economics\u2019, History of Political Economy 44, 1\u201324. Manuell, Paul and Wayne Graham (2017), \u2018Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers\u2019, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business 8(1), 74\u201390. Mekawy, M. A. (2022), \u2018A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses\u2019 Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19\u2019, Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal 70(1), 9\u201327. Melgar Estrada, L. and M Koolen (2018), \u2018Audiovisual Media Annotation Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A Comparative Analysis\u2019, The Qualitative Report 23(13), 40\u201360. Merriam, S B and E J Tisdell (2015), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series, Wiley. Miles, M B, A M Huberman and J Saldana (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE Publications. Miller, S. A. (2017), Developmental Research Methods, SAGE Publications.","208 References Mills, J., A. Bonner and K. Francis (2006), \u2018The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory\u2019, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1), 25\u201335. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/160940690600500103 Mishra, L. (2016), \u2018Focus Group Discussion in Qualitative Research\u2019, TechnoLEARN 6(1), 1\u2013 5. Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2016), \u2018Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies and our research skills\u2019, European Journal of Management and Business Economics 25(2), 37\u201338. Morgan, D. L. (2012), Focus Groups and Social Interaction, A Sage reference title, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications. Morse, J. M (2009), \u2018Mixing Qualitative Methods\u2019, Qualitative Health Research 19(11), 1523\u2013 1524. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1049732309349360 Ngadimin, N. F., A. H. Mar Iman and F. Raji (2018), \u2018Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project\u2019, The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS) pp. 1142\u20131169. Nix, Emily, Jacob Paulose, Clive Shrubsole, Hector Altamirano-Medina, Kristine Belesova, Michael Davies, Renu Khosla and Paul Wilkinson (2019), \u2018Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low-Income Housing in Delhi, India.\u2019, Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) 3(4), 1800054. Noisopha, S. and W. Wangkananoni (2022), \u2018Strategies of Logistics Cost Management for Rice Exports by Sea Transportation to the International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters\u2019, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University 16(2), 25\u201336. Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White and N. J. Moules (2017), \u2018Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria\u2019, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1), 1609406917733847. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1609406917733847 Oast, J. and M. De Allegri (2018), Qualitative Methods in Health Economics, Oxford University Press. O.Nyumba, T., K. Wilson, C. J. Derrick and N. Mukherjee (2018), \u2018The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation\u2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1), 20\u201332. URL: https:\/\/besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/2041-210X.12860 Partington, D. (2002), Grounded Theory, in \u2018Essential Skills for Management Research\u2019, SAGE Publications, pp. 136\u2013157. Patton, M. Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, SAGE Publications.","References 209 Patton, M Q (2014), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, SAGE Publications. Phillips, D. C. and N. C. Burbules (2000), Postpositivism and Educational Research, G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, Rowman & Little\ufb01eld Publishers. Piore, M.J. (2006), \u2018Qualitative research: does it \ufb01t in economics?1\u2019, European Management Review 3(1), 17\u201323. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1057\/palgrave.emr.1500053 Polhong, T., S. Chanthes and N. Songsrirote (2022), \u2018Adaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: an Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand\u2019, 2022 the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science (IMMS 2022) August, 324\u2013328. Polhong, T. and S. Puangpronpitag (2020), \u2018Innovative Entrepreneurship in Local Cross- Country Freight Enterprises in Thailand\u2019, ECIE 2020 15th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2020(September), 468\u2013475. Potjanajaruwit, P. (2019), \u2018Thailand 4.0\u2019s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Indicator Level\u2019, Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics 2(15), 19\u201329. Puangpronpitag, S. (2015), Entrepreneurship: A contemporary challenge to sustainable competitiveness of Thai Rubber farmers, in \u2018European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship\u2019, Academic Conferences International Limited, Genoa, Italy, pp. 561\u2013 566. Punch, K. F. (2013), Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, SAGE Publications. Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107, M. and B.A. Alecchi (2016), Qualitative Methods in Economics, Routledge. Randall, Wesley S. (2012), \u2018Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research\u2019, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 42(8\/9), 863\u2013880. Renjith, Vishnu, Renjulal Yesodharan, Judith A Noronha, Elissa Ladd and Anice George (2021), \u2018Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research.\u2019, International Journal of Preventive Medicine 12, 20. Rowlands, Bruce H. (2005), \u2018Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research to Build Theory\u2019, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 3(1), 81\u201392. Schoonenboom, J. and R. B. Johnson (2017), \u2018How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design\u2019, KZfSS K\u00f6lner Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 69(2), 107\u2013131. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11577-017-0454-1 Schwandt, T A (2014), The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry, SAGE Publications.","210 References Silverman, D (2020), Qualitative Research, SAGE Publications. Smithson, J. (2000), \u2018Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities\u2019, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2), 103\u2013119. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/136455700405172 Sriboonlue, P. and S. Puangpronpitag (2019), \u2018Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand\u2019, Procedia Computer Science 158, 819\u2013825. URL: https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S187705091931289X Stake, R E (2013), Multiple Case Study Analysis, Guilford Publications. Stewart-Withers, R., G. Banks, A. Mcgregor and L. Meo-Sewabu (2014), Development Field Work: A Practical Guide, in R.Stewart-Withers, G.Banks and M.A., eds, \u2018Qualitative research\u2019, SAGE Publications, Ltd, pp. 59\u201380. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, SAGE Publications. Str\u00fcbing, J. (2007), Research as pragmatic problem-solving: the pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing., in A.Bryant and K.Charmaz, eds, \u2018The SAGE handbook of grounded theory\u2019, SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 580\u2013601. URL: https:\/\/methods.sagepub.com\/book\/the-sage-handbook-of-grounded-theory Su, N. (2018), Positivist Qualitative Methods, in \u2018The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods\u2019, Sage, London, pp. 17\u201332. Suangsub, P., S. Chemsripong and K. Srisermpoke (2022), \u2018High Performance Organization: A Case Study of the Logistics Industry in Thailand\u2019, Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences) 15(1), 98\u2013112. Symon, G and C Cassell (2012), Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, SAGE Publications. Tashakkori, A., B. Johnson and C. Teddlie (2020), Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications. Taylor, S J, R Bogdan and M DeVault (2015), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, Wiley. Thai, M. T., L. C Chong and N. M. Agrawal (2012), \u2018Straussian Grounded-Theory Method: An Illustration\u2019, The Qualitative Report, 17(5), 1\u201355. Theodoridis, Constantinos (2014), A Phenomenological Case Study: Strategy Development in Small and Medium Retail Enterprises in Greece during Recession, in \u2018SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 1\u2019, SAGE Publications, Ltd, London.","References 211 Timonen, Virpi, Geraldine Foley and Catherine Conlon (2018), \u2018Challenges When Using Grounded Theory: A Pragmatic Introduction to Doing GT Research\u2019, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17(1), 1\u201310. URL: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1609406918758086 Tomkins, L. and V. Eatough (2018), Hermeneutics: Interpretation, Understanding and Sense-making, in A.Cassell, A. L.Cunli\ufb00e and G.Grandy, eds, \u2018The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods\u2019, Sage, London, pp. 185\u20131200. Turek, K. and S. Krupnik (2014), \u2018Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies\u2019, Zarza\u00b8 dzanie Publiczne 2(28), 32\u201348. Turyahikayo, E. (2021), \u2018Philosophical Paradigms as the Bases for Knowledge Management Research and Practice\u2019, Knowledge Management & E-Learning 13(2), 209\u2013224. Von Wright, G. (1993), Two Traditions, in M.Hammersley, ed., \u2018Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice\u2019, DEH313 : Principles of social and educational research, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 9\u201313. Wertz, F.J., K. Charmaz, L.M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson and E. McSpadden (2011), Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry, Guilford Publications. Yin, R. K. (2017), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications. Yin, R.K. (2011), Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications, New York.","","Index abductive reasoning, 76 conceptual coding, 117 action research, 42 conceptual framework, 114, 181 action-oriented, 44 constant comparison, 139 advanced memos, 135 construct validity, 160 analytic coding, 125 constructivism, 13 Anselm Strauss, 71, 75 constructivist grounded theory, 79 anti-positivism, 7, 12 convenience sampling, 120 anti-positivist, 164 convergent mixed methods, 30 approaches to research, 16 critical realism, 9 culture-oriented, 44 mixed methods research, 26 qualitative, 18 data analysis, 120 quantitative, 17 data collection, 119 audiovisual resources, 100 data instrumentation, 103 axial coding, 125 data triangulation, 148 deductive reasoning, 50 Barney Glaser, 71 direct observation, 98 bounded system, 42 disciplinary literature, 113 documentary analysis, 99 CAQDAS, 149 documents case study, 42 non-professional documents, 99 bounded system, 42 professional documents, 99 design, 42 case-oriented, 44 early memos, 134 categories, 124 emerging theory, 143 classical evaluation criteria, 159 emic, 44 generalizability, 162 epistemology, 11 reliability, 161 validity, 159 Interpretivism, 12 classical grounded theory, 73 positivism, 11 coding, 123 pragmatism, 13 axial coding, 125 equal-status mixed methods, 30 open coding, 124 ethical conduct, 189 selective coding, 126 ethical manners, 190 theoretical coding, 127 ethnography, 41 coding strategies, 123 etic, 44, 59","214 Index interpretivism, 7 constructivism, 13 evaluating qualitative research, 158 hermeneutics, 12 experienced-oriented, 44 phenomenology, 12 explanatory mixed methods, 26 exploratory mixed methods, 28 interpretivist grounded theory, 73 external validity, 160 interviews, 91 \ufb01eldwork notes, 138 focus group discussions, 94 semi-structured interview, 93 focused coding, 126 structured interview, 92 formal theory, 51, 144 unstructured interview, 92 generalizability, 162 intriguing discovery, 188 Glaserian grounded theory, 73 investigative boundary, 42 Glaserian root\u2019s, 74 investigative focuses, 44 grounded theory, 43 investigator triangulation, 148 grounded theory coding iterative reasoning, 54 iterative research process, 54 axial coding, 125 iterative steps , 55 open coding, 124 literature, 113 selective coding, 126 non-technical literature, 113 theoretical coding, 127 technical literature, 113 grounded theory process, 107 literature review, 113, 180 grounded theory types, 71 memos, 134 constructivist grounded theory, 79 advanced memos, 135 positivist grounded theory, 73 early memos, 134 pragmatic grounded theory, 75 method-appropriate criteria, 164 grounded theory wrongdoings, 188 authenticity, 166 hermeneutic circle, 54 \ufb01t, 166 hermeneutic interpretation, 55 modi\ufb01able, 166 hermeneutics, 12, 54 quality of speci\ufb01city, 166 heuristic research, 13 relevance, 166 inadequate data , 188 trustworthiness, 166 inductive reasoning, 47 work, 166 initial coding, 124 methodological triangulation, 149 insu\ufb03cient interrogation, 188 methodology, 15 inter-researcher reliability, 45 mixed methods research, 26 interactive mixed methods, 30 convergent, 30 internal validity, 160 explanatory, 26 interpretive grounded theory, 75 exploratory, 28 pragmatism, 75 multi-phase data collection, 184 constructivist, 79 narrative study, 41 interpretive perspectives, 44 non-professional documents, 99 emic, 44 non-technical literature, 180 etic, 44 objective worldviews, 10 interpretive pragmatism, 72","observations, 96 Index 215 ontology, 5 qualitative research designs, 17, 19 anti-positivism, 7 quantitative, 17 positivism, 5 quantitative researcher, 17 post-positivism, 5 reasoning process, 46 open coding, 124 operationalizing methodology, 55 abductive, 76 over-reliance, 188 deductive, 50 overstatement, 188 inductive, 47 iterative, 54 participant observation, 98 redundant categories, 188 participatory action research (PAR), 42 re\ufb02exivity, 50 perception-oriented, 44 reliability, 160, 161 phenomenology, 12, 40 replicability, 50 philosophical discussions, 4 research, 15 mixed methods research, 26 epistemology, 11 qualitative research, 18 methodology, 15 quantitive research, 17 ontology, 5 research assessment, 158 pitfalls in grounded theory, 188 classical criteria, 159 positivism, 5, 11 method-appropriate criteria, 164 positivist, 159 research methods, 15 positivist grounded theory, 73 mixed methods, 26 post-positivist, 159 qualitative, 18 pragmatic grounded theory, 75 quantitative, 17 pragmatism, 13 research question, 109 preliminary literature review, 113 research triangulation, 148 premature closure, 188 data, 148 professional documents, 99 investigator, 148 purposive sampling, 120 methodological, 149 theory, 148 qualitative, 18 sampling procedure, 120 qualitative data, 89 scienti\ufb01c criteria, 159 selective coding, 126 audiovisual, 100 semi-structured interview, 93 documents, 99 snowball sampling, 120 focus group discussions, 94 Straussian grounded theory, 72, 75 interviews, 91 Struass\u2019s root, 75 observations, 96 structured interview, 92 qualitative outcomes, 58 subjective worldviews, 22 qualitative research, 22 substantive theory, 51, 144 action research, 42 technical literature, 187 case study, 42 theoretical coding, 127 ethnography, 41 theoretical sampling, 120 grounded theory, 43 theoretical saturation, 121 narrative study, 41 phenomenology, 40","216 Index theoretical triangulation, 148 theory, 143 formal theory, 145 substantive theory, 145 theory development, 143 theory-building research, 50 theory-testing research, 47 under-analysis, 188 unit of analysis, 111 unstructured interview, 92 use of theory, 46 iteartive theory building, 54 theory-building, 50 theory-testing, 47 validity, 159 variable-oriented, 44 veri\ufb01ability , 50 worldviews, 10 objective, 10 subjective, 22 writing memos, 134 wrongdoings, 188","Author\u2019s Vitae Suteera Chanthes","","Author\u2019s Vitae 219 SUTEERA CHANTHES (+66) 43 754333 [email protected] Assistant Professor, Department of Business Econonomics, Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham Univeristy, Khamriang, Kantarawichai, Mahasarakham, 44000, THAILAND ALSO KNOWN AS: SUTEERA PUANGPRONPITAG ORCID: https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-6774-6462 EXPERTISE AND RESEARCH INTERESTS Suteera Chanthes has expertise area in business economics. Her research focus is regional economic development. She is particularly interested in the triple helix model of university-industry-government collaboration, knowledge-based entrepreneurship, university outreach and its impact on the regional economic development and regional logistics development. She specializes in doing qualitative and mixed methods research, especially the grounded theory study. She has over a decade of experience working on collaborative projects with national and international colleagues in the UK and the USA. QUALIFICATIONS October 2005 - June 2010 Management School, Southampton University, UK June 2001 - May 2002 Ph.D. in Management Faculty of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand June 1997 - May 2001 Master of Arts in Business and Managerial Economics (International Program) Faculty of Management Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand Bachelor of Business Administration (Finance Major) (First Class Honors) ACADEMIC WORK EXPERIENCES Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, Thailand August 2017 - present Assistant Professor of Economics Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, ThailandOctober 2002 - July 2017 Lecturer of Economics Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, UK July 2016 - April 2017 Visiting Researcher Management School, University of Liverpool, UK April 2016 - June 2016 Honorary Scholar College of Education, University of Washington at Seattle, USA November 2007 - April 2008 Visiting Scholar Management School, Southampton University, UK October 2005 - June 2010 Full-time Ph.D. Student","220 Author\u2019s Vitae PUBLIC SERVICES July 2012 - June 2014 The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) February 2012 - June 2013 Committee of Logistics Knowledge (Term 2012 - 2014) The National Economic and Social Advisory Board of Thailand Committee of the 3rd Macroeconomics, Monetary and Fiscal Policies TEACHING EXPERIENCES Qualitative Research Methods (International Program) Postgraduate Level: International Economics Graduate Level: International Financial Economics International Modern Trade and Financial Economics Undergraduate Level: Business Statistics (International Program) Industrial Economics and Industrial Development Macroeconomics Marketing Economics Microeconomics (International Program) Seminar in Business Economics PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT August 2018 - February 2019 October 2016 - January 2017 DIES Proposal Writing Courses Sponsored by German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Germany Newton Fund Professional Development Programme For Mid-Career Researcher 2016\/17 Co-sponsored by the Thailand National Research Fund (TRF) and the Newton Fund, UK NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECTS Research into Commerical Innovation Fund, Mahasarakham University, Thailand October 2022 - September 2023 Role: Co-Principle Investigator Co-PI) Project Title: Innovative Processing of Low-Grade Ribbed Smoked Sheet (RSS) into High Quality Commercial Products The Newton Fund, UK, and the O\ufb03ce of the Higher Education Commission of Thailand April 2015 - October 2016 Role: Principle Investigator (PI) Project Title: Towards Knowledge- Based Entrepreneurship: a Comparative Study of the Triple Helix Network of Knowledge Transfer in Community Enterprises in Thailand and the UK The O\ufb03ce of the Higher Education Commission of Thailand and the National Research Fund, jointly funded by Mahasarakham University June 2013 - September 2015 Role: Principle Investigator (PI) Project Title: The Role of Triple Helix for Promoting the Development of Small and Micro Community Enterprises for Rubber Production in the Northeast of Thailand","Author\u2019s Vitae 221 The Worldwide Universities Network (WUN), UK and USA November 2007 - April 2008 Role: Principle Investigator (PI) Project Title: East Meets West: a Comparative Study of Academic Services in Public Universities in ful\ufb01lling a Contribution to Regional Economic Development in Thailand and the United States PUBLICATIONS Chanthes, S. (2012). \u201cIncreasing Faculty Research Productivity via a Triple-Helix Modeled University Outreach Project: Empirical Evidence from Thailand.\u201d Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 52:253\u201358. doi: 10.1016\/j.sbspro.2012.09.462. (Scopus and Wos indexed) Chanthes, S. (2022) \u2018University Outreach in the Triple Helix Model of Collaboration for Entrepreneurial Development\u2019, Journal of Educational Issues, 8(2), pp. 178\u2013192. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5296\/jei.v8i2.20086. (ERIC indexed) Chanthes, S., and P. Sriboonlue. (2021). \u201cTriple 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.\u201d pp. 194\u2013203 in ECIE 2021 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vol 1. Pafos, Cyprus: Academic Conferences limited. (Scopus and WoS indexed) Chanthes, S. (2021). \u201cUsing a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand.\u201d pp. 72\u201381 in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal. (Scopus indexed) Polhong, T., S. Chanthes, and N. Songsrirote. (2022). \u201cAdaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: An Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand.\u201d pp.324-328 in 2022 the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science (IMMS 2022). New York: ACM. (Scopus indexed) Polhong, T., and S. Puangpronpitag. (2020). \u201cInnovative Entrepreneurship in Local Cross-Country Freight Enterprises in Thailand.\u201d pp. 468\u201375 in ECIE 2020 15th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship|. Rome, Italy. (Scopus indexed) Puangpronpitag, S. (2015). \u201cEntrepreneurship: A Contemporary Challenge to Sustainable Competitiveness of Thai Rubber Farmers.\u201d pp. 561\u201366 in European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Genoa, Italy: Academic Conferences International Limited. (Scopus indexed) Puangpronpitag, S. (2019a). \u201cTriple Helix Model and Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship in Regional Engagement: A Case Study of Thai and UK Universities.\u201d Procedia Computer Science 158:565\u201372. doi: 10.1016\/j.procs.2019.09.090. (Scopus indexed) Puangpronpitag, S. (2019b). \u201cUniversity Engagement and Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development: An Empirical Study from a UK University.\u201d pp. 834\u201341 in European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Kalamata, Greece: Academic Conferences International Limited. (Scopus indexed) Sriboonlue, P. and Puangpronpitag, S. (2019) \u2018Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand\u2019, Procedia Computer Science, 158, pp. 819\u2013825. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.procs.2019.09.119. (Scopus indexed) POSTER PRESENTATION Chanthes, S., and J. Taylor. (2018). Towards Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Study of the Triple Helix Network of Knowledge Transfer in Community Enterprises in Thailand and the UK. Executive Report and Poster presentation at The 18th TRF-OHEC Annual Congress (2018).",""]