Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 33 Key Terms Anti-positivism, 7 Ontology, 5 Convergent mixed methods, 30 Phenomenology, 12 Epistemology, 11 Pragmatism, 13 Explanatory mixed methods, 26 Positivism, 5 Exploratory mixed methods, 28 Positivist epistemology, 5 Interpretivism, 12, Positivist ontology, 5 Interpretive hermeneutics, 12, Post-positivism, 5 Hermeneutics, 12, Qualitative research, 18 Mixed methods research, 26 Quantitative research, 17 1.7 Exercises 1. Critically compare the characteristics of positivism and anti- positivism paradigms of social sciences research. 2. Describe how the sequence of quantitative and qualitative techniques in mixed methods research differs among the three designs: explanatory, exploratory and convergent. 3. Explain the distinctive critical components that make qualitative research suitable as a choice for economics and management research. 4. Assuming you have been assigned 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. Discuss the following designing issues for research methodology, then decide what approach is suitable for the study: quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. • Ontology • Epistemology • Research design • Significance of context • Production of results 5. Critically provide examples of philosophical beliefs to support economic and management researchers for not choosing qualitative research as a suitable method.

34 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research References Bailesteanu, G. (2009) ‘Hermeneutics and Economics’, Timisoara Journal of Economics, 2(3(7)), pp. 121–128. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2021) Social Research Methods. 6th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chanthes, S. and Sriboonlue, P. (2021) ‘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). Chia, R. (2002) ‘The Production of Management Knowledge: Philosophical Underpinnings of Research Design’, in Partington, D. (ed.) Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 1–19. Collins, H. (2018) Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. Bloomsbury Academic. Corbetta, P. (2011) Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. Sage. Creswell, J. W. and Creswell, J. D. (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2012) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE Publications. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 5th edn. SAGE Publications (Handbook of Qualitative Research), pp. 1–32. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. R. (2015) Management and Business Research. 5th edn. SAGE Publications. Gomm, R. (2008) Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction. Bloomsbury Academic. Gould, S. J. (1995) ‘Researcher Introspection as a Method in Consumer Research: Applications, Issues, and Implications’, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4), pp. 719–722. Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications.

Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research 35 Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. (1989) ‘Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255–274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2017) ‘Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 191–215. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2019) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 4th edn. Routledge. Hughes, J. A. and Sharrock, W. W. (2016) The Philosophy of Social Research. Taylor & Francis (Longman Social Research Series). Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and Turner, L. . A. (2007) ‘Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, pp. 112–133. Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. A. (2019) ‘Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research’, Social Sciences. doi: 10.3390/socsci8090255. Kyrychok, A. (2018) ‘The Philosophy of positivism in economic science’, Science and Education a New Dimension, VI(168), pp. 53–56. doi: 10.31174/SEND-HS2018-168VI27-13. Lohse, S. (2017) ‘Pragmatism, Ontology, and Philosophy of the Social Sciences in Practice’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 47(1), pp. 3–27. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miller, S. A. (2017) Developmental Research Methods. SAGE Publications. Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2016) ‘Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies and our research skills’, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 25(2), pp. 37–38. doi: 10.1016/j.redeen.2016.05.001. Partington, D. (2002) ‘Grounded theory’, in Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 136–157. Phillips, D. C. and Burbules, N. C. (2000) Postpositivism and Educational Research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series). Potjanajaruwit, P. (2019) ‘Thailand 4.0’s Innovation and Technology: Analyzing Indicator Level’, Journal on Global Socio-Economic Dynamics, 2(15), pp. 19–29. 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.

36 Chapter 1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Social Research Schoonenboom, J. and Johnson, R. B. (2017) ‘How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design’, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), pp. 107–131. doi: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1. Silverman, D. (2020) Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications. Sriboonlue, P. and Puangpronpitag, S. (2019) ‘Towards Innovative SMEs: An Empirical Study of Regional Small and Medium Enterprises in Thailand’, Procedia Computer Science, 158, pp. 819–825. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.119. Stewart-Withers, R. et al. (2014) ‘Development Field Work: A Practical Guide’, in Stewart-Withers, R., Banks, G., and A., M. (eds) Qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Ltd, pp. 59–80. doi: 10.4135/9781473921801. 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. Turyahikayo, E. (2021) ‘Philosophical Paradigms as the Bases for Knowledge Management Research and Practice’, Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 13(2), pp. 209–224. Von Wright, G. (1993) ‘Two Traditions’, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: SAGE Publications (DEH313 : Principles of social and educational research), pp. 9–13.

C2 Qualitative Economics and Management Research 2.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Qualitative turn in The previous chapter discussed the philosophical underpinnings of economics and qualitative research to be chosen as a suitable method. It pointed out management research, five essential components for confirming the suitability and page 38: necessity of using the qualitative approach in social research: a focus Phenomenology on subjective worldviews, the researcher as the key instrument, an Ethnography inductive process, a context-oriented design, and the production of Narrative study rich descriptive classifying results. These components help social Case study researchers positively choose qualitative methods, concerning that Action research quantitative techniques have limited particular abilities to meet these Grounded theory criteria. As a result, there are circumstances in which social Fundamental researchers, those in economics and management sciences included, considerations for need to employ qualitative research to approach the answers to their method selction, page inquiries. 43: The use of theory, Considering that there are various qualitative techniques Investigative focuses available as possible choices for economic and management Qualitative outcomes researchers to select for their studies, it is, therefore, necessary to When to choose research the differences among these choices. Therefore, this chapter grouneded theory needs to provide methodological comparisons among various method, page 59 qualitative techniques used in economic and management research before discussing when to choose grounded theory. The chapter aims to guide students and researchers on when to choose grounded theory study as the suitable qualitative method. It will begin with the outline of qualitative turn in economic and management research. The first section will introduce various qualitative methods commonly used by researchers in these disciplines. Then the next section will outline three classifying

38 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research criteria as the fundamental considerations for method selection, namely the use of theory, investigative focuses, and qualitative outcomes. This section comparatively explains the methodological characteristics of different qualitative techniques and example studies with details on the method used in practice. The final section will discuss when to choose the grounded theory method considering its specific characteristics according to the three criteria outlined. The objective of this chapter is to critically discuss different qualitative techniques used in economic and management research. It intends to lay an essential foundation for identifying the distinctive qualities of grounded theory study that make the technique distinctive from other methods to help students and researchers decide when to choose it appropriately. Post-positivist 2.2 Qualitative Turn in Economics and Management qualitative research Research seeks to understand the world objectively Recall from Chapter 1, although varied, the multiple qualitative while accepting methods share similar characteristics. Concisely reminding, firstly, subjectivities in qualitative methods can be rooted in either post-positivist or human experiences. anti-positivist paradigms; they accept subjective meanings embedded in the social realities. In other words, all qualitative methods acknowledge subjectivity and imperfect objectivity in the research attempt to approach the social implications. Secondly, they consider multiple realities instead of a solid cause-and-effect explanation of social inquiries. Thirdly, they believe in interpretive epistemological tradition, meaning inductive interpretation is the fundamental approach to finding answers to the inquired problems. For this reason, qualitative methods share similar induction of the process as presented in Figure 2.1. Fourthly, they adopt an inductive reasoning approach in the research procedure. Finally, they believe in the influence of context, regardless of the specific objective of different methods aiming at either objective or subjective meanings of the studied phenomenon. Taking into account the essential characteristics of qualitative research, this section will explain various qualitative techniques commonly used in economic and management research. The classification of qualitative strategies is always complex and in multiple presentations across different textbooks (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Miles et al., 2014). Often, they are classified in specific disciplinary considerations. In economic and management studies, three classifying criteria are recognizable: different procedures for the use of related theories (Creswell and Creswell, 2017), different investigative focus (Partington, 2002), and different participation of

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 39 Figure 2.1: Comparison of Basic Patterns of Deduction and Induction in Research Source: Based on Radović-Marković and Alecchi (2016, p.26). Explanation: Two basic approaches to social research reasoning are inductive and deductive. Qualitative research often adopts the former, inductive, also known as the theory-building process aiming at constructing a theory from the data. The latter is deductive, also known as the theory- testing process aiming at theory verification, either as accepted or rejected, using the research data from the fieldwork. the researcher and the context of happenings being studied (Symon Post-positivist and Cassell, 2012). qualitative research seeks to understand Different techniques for conducting qualitative research are the world objectively related to diverse philosophical variations, historical debates, and while accepting the criticisms about the most appropriate philosophical beliefs in which subjective elements the method is rooted (Symon and Cassell, 2012). Regarding of social reality and ontological research positions, some believe that qualitative studies human experiences. are rooted in the anti-positivist tradition (Corbetta, 2011; Von Anti-positivist Wright, 1993), while some assert it can be embedded in either qualitative research post-positivism or anti-positivism (Glaser, 1978; Charmaz, 2014; seeks to understand Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Considering these arguments, however, the world the employment of qualitative studies in economics and subjectively. management supports the latter; qualitative researchers in these fields practically undertake both traditions. Qualitative researchers taking a post-positivist position use the method to interpret the objective implications of the studied phenomenon (Goulding, 2002; Piore, 2006). They approach the findings using research designs that allow systematic and analytic qualitative data collection and analysis (Glaser, 1978; Charmaz, 2014). Alternatively, those who root their studies in the anti-positivist tradition employ qualitative methods in search of subjective interpretation to explain the inquired economic and management problems (Lee and Cronin, 2016; Hill and Meagher, 1999).

40 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Despite the different perspectives, researchers taking either post- positivist or anti-positivist stances acknowledge the involvement of subjective values; these researchers realize that perfect objectivity is impossible. Hence, concerning the recognition of different subjective beliefs and values across different people and social contexts, perfect repeatability in qualitative social research is impossible (Stake, 2013). Nonetheless, the involvement of unnecessary biases is claimed to be reduced to the minimum using specific techniques such as analytic comparisons across related literature and data triangulation (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). Various arguments and debates result in different designs adopted by qualitative researchers across disciplines. In economic and management sciences, six qualitative methods are often employed, including phenomenology, ethnography, narrative study, case study, action research, and grounded theory (Radović-Marković and Alecchi, 2016; Coast, 2017; Lee and Cronin, 2016). An introduction to the six methods commonly used in economic and management research is provided next. Phenomenology 2.2.1 Phenomenology focuses on studying human experiences. The term phenomenology is variously used in qualitative research design. On the one hand, phenomenology is known as one of the interpretive epistemological traditions of social research1. On the other hand, it is regarded as a type of qualitative research method. Phenomenology, as a research method, focuses on studying human experiences. The term is used as both a philosophy and a methodology (Goulding, 2002). When used as a qualitative research design, phenomenology aims to understand complex issues of people’s experiences in the social world as they live by studying their social actions. Phenomenology is often used in qualitative economic and management research to examine the implicit meanings of human experiences and behaviors in the inquired phenomenon or social settings being studied. The result of phenomenology is a holistic presentation of experiential descriptions based on the experiences of both the researchers and those observed. The investigative focus of phenomenology is, therefore, experience-oriented. The objective of research choosing this method is usually trying to approach the experiential descriptions of the inquired phenomenon. For instance, as used in economics research, it allows the researcher to understand the essence of individuals 1As explained previously in Chapter 1, specifically see page 12, phenomenology, as an interpretive epistemological tradition, believes that social reality is the understanding of the nature of human experiences and events as they are directly and immediately experienced.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 41 experiencing in a particular situation concerning what can be theoretically explained as their actions and participations (Oast and De Allegri, 2018). 2.2.2 Ethnography Ethnography focuses on cultural studies. Ethnography focuses on cultural studies. The method comes from anthropology and sociology designed for social inquires aiming at examining behaviors, actions, interactions, and experiences of an intact cultural group (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), ethnography research focuses on human society and culture; it aims to understand not only the interaction of individuals being studied but also how they interact with the culture of the societal contexts they live. Thus, the result of ethnography is usually cultural description. The method is often adopted in economic and management research with a cultural focus on the inquired settings, such as organizations, communities, regions, or countries (Lee and Cronin, 2016; Currall and Towler, 2003). When ethnography is used in economic and management research, it usually helps examine actions and interactions of humans, as the actors, in the inquired settings, such as organizations, communities, regions, or countries. Ethnographic research usually involves long-term observations. Its research outcomes is cultural oriented often include cultural descriptions of those being observed. 2.2.3 Narrative Study Narrative study aims to explore subjective The narrative study is a traditional research method in psychology perceptions in with the primary aim of exploring subjective perceptions in human human experiences. experiences. Its epistemological heritage is rooted in interpretivism, specifically in hermeneutic tradition, which focuses on the importance of “listening to voices of experiences as expressed in narrations” (Wertz et al., 2011, p.63). Considering its potency of perceptive exploration, many economic and management researchers employ the technique to study issues relating to mental sets of people, such as motivations, needs and expectations, in economic and management problems. The investigative procedure involves interpretations of individuals’ perceptions concerning the research inquiry of human firsthand experiences. Narrative researchers believe in constructing the understanding of human perceptions upon classification, categorization, conceptualization and theory building in meaningful ways. The investigative procedure of narrative study is perception-oriented, seeking to deliver a perceptive description of those being studied as the outcomes. However, the narrative

42 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research approach is often criticized, especially in empirical economics work, for lack of plausibility in providing a theoretical explanation. Hence, the method is often used in an ancillary role in quantitative-dominated research, which utilizes econometrics or statistical inference from data analysis (Dumez and Jeunemaître, 2005). Case study 2.2.4 Case study constructs elements of the investigation Case study is a research design that essentially requires a bounded using a brounded system, which is a distinctive feature that makes a case study system, or the case’s different from other research methods. Instead of using the focus of boundary. the study to define the unit of analysis, case study research uses a bounded system for defining (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The bounded systems are the investigative boundary, or a fence (Stake, 2013), of a selected case, meaning that the observed phenomenon is intrinsically bounded and studied. Considering how the case study method is defined, the unit of analysis of a case study can be anything. For example, it can be an organization, a group of people, a work process, work experiences or even a single person, as long as the researcher defines what is intrinsically interesting to be investigated. Therefore, the case study method is distinct from other qualitative techniques concerning its requirement for a case’s bounded system in the design. Its investigative focus, as a research method, is therefore case-oriented. The expected outcomes are an explanation intrinsically bounded within the inquired case setting deriving through contextualizing the case attributes In addition, researchers adopting a cases study need to clarify the investigative propositions of the intrinsic focus of the case. Action research 2.2.5 Action Research involves with the researcher’s Action research, also known as participatory action research (PAR), participation, or requires the researcher to intervene in the inquired phenomenon. intervention, while The requirement for the researcher’s intervention makes this observing the method distinctive from other techniques. According to Nix et al. phenomenon under (2019), action research is action orientated, participatory, and the study. systemic in its approach; it can be qualitative or quantitative or integrate both research strategies. The method begins with developing a conceptual framework to outline a set-up situation and the role of researchers intervening in it, designed under the aims of the investigation (Chevalier and Buckles, 2019). The investigative focus of action research is, therefore, action-oriented. The study results often involved the intervening

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 43 insightful explanation derived as the researcher’s making sense of the studied settings. For example, when used in organizational management research, the research outcomes are produced based on the researcher’s involvement with the organization’s members. This involvement and the member’s observed actions are based on the set-up of intervened setting given the predetermined investigative matter. 2.2.6 Grounded Theory Grounded theory research employs the Grounded theory was firstly introduced in the 1960s in a book by scientific logic of sociologists Glaser and Strauss in 1967, the Discover of Grounded systematic and Theory. The method aims to develop a theory to emerge from or be logical analysis in grounded in the data using systematic, inductive, iterative, and qualitative research. comparative data to result in theory construction (Wertz et al., 2011). Grounded theory is distinctive from other qualitative methods concerning the continuous interplay of the data collection and analysis processes, comprising techniques specific to the method known as theoretical sampling and constant comparisons (Glaser, 1978). This method for developing theory focuses on systemically gathered and analyzed data. Hence, economic and management researchers use grounded theory to construct an emerging theoretical explanation of derived from the research data using its transparency and explicit strategies of the analysis procedure. This method focuses on emerging theory development from the research data. It is therefore recognized as a variable-oriented investigation aiming at finding a causal explanation of the inquired problems. This method is suitable for studies aiming to theoretically explain the relationships of social elements, so-called variables, of the human or situation under the study (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). 2.3 Fundamental Considerations for Method Selection Similar to selecting a research approach—qualitative, quantitative, or mix-methods—choosing an appropriate qualitative method is a time-consuming, reflective process. It requires a self-evaluation of convictions, beliefs, and interests. It entails being open and truthful about personal views, the knowledge, and the perception of potential capacity for knowledge. It also calls for dedication to the process after a choice has been made. Methods are subjective since different people have various ways of thinking and arriving at the truth. The fit between the method and the individual, between their working style, who they are, and how they think, is thus rarely considered when choosing an appropriate approach.

44 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research This section will outline four fundamental considerations for method selection concerning the investigative focus, the interpretive perspective, the use of theory, and the qualitative outcome. 2.3.1 Investigative Focuses The first critical considerate aspect when choosing a suitable qualitative method is an investigative focus. Considering the variation of techniques, investigative focuses in qualitative studies vary depending on the type of research design chosen for the study. Given the six common appraoches as explained previously, there are six qualitative investigative focuses as outlined in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Different Investigative Focuses in Qualitative Research Source: the author. Explanation: The six commonly used qualitative methods have different investigative focuses. Researchers need to clarify their research focus as they decide on the most appropriate method. Emic: the emic 2.3.2 Interpretive Perspectives perspective is the insider’s viewpoint. When choosing a good qualitative method for social research, it is The researchers also important to think about the researcher’s interpretive share their values in perspective, or the different ways of looking at the thing being the interpretation of studied.The research must either choose emic or etic views. That is, social meanings. the researcher may make sense of those being studied from the insider’s views (emic) or the outsider’s views (etic). According to Currall and Towler (2003), the positivist research approaches that believe that the social world exists independently of the researcher prefer the etic view. In this regard, it is asserted that the etic approach is suitable for quantitative methods that try to analyze raw data rather than influence the meaning of the human experience that the data is derived from. Inversely, as explained by Merriam and Tisdell (2015), the emic view is preferred by qualitative researchers

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 45 who want to understand the people or social interactions they are Etic: the etic researching by sharing their values in an effort to understand them. perspective is the outsider’s viewpoint. However, it is not necessary that qualitative researchers interpret The researchers the meaning of the social world with the emic view. As asserted by attempt to exclude Miles et al. (2014), the etic view can be used by qualitative their values from the researchers whose research method is variable-oriented. For these interpretation of studies, the production of results is tied to an analytic interpretive social meanings. purpose ‘to illuminate the constant, influential, determining factors Grounded theorists shaping the course of events’ (Miles et al., 2014, p.324). The etic view use the etic view in is therefore not necessarily always derived from the positivist conducting the study. tradition. Furthermore, despite the fact that the emic view is recognized by some scholars, e.g. Merriam and Tisdell (2015), as suitable for qualitative social inquiries, Kincheloe and McLaren (2011) point out that the tradition is often blamed for lessening the reliability of the study. This criticism concerns the researcher’s biographical experience being blended with the information self-reported by the subjects observed. For this reason, inter-researcher reliability is difficult to achieve; they claim that different researchers have different accumulated life experiences that permeate their understanding of the world. Accordingly, it is of concern to the researcher that the lower inter-researcher reliability could lessen the philosophical value of the research. Therefore, to choose an appropriate qualitative method, the researcher must take into consideration both the benefits and the criticisms of the two distinct views. While some methodological traditions, such as phenomenology and narrative study, specifically prefer the researcher to adopt the emic tradition, other methods, such as ethnography and participatory action research, require both emic and etic views, considering the required participation of the researcher in the studied phenomenon Goulding (2002). For the grounded theory method, which focuses on value-oriented procedures, the etic viewpoint is specifically the choice (Miles et al., 2014, p.324). Other methods, such as a case study, can be more flexible; either emic or etic perspectives, or a combination of both perspectives, are allowed depending on the research objectives and investigative boundaries.

46 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Two levels for using 2.3.3 The Use of Theory theories in qualitative research: According to Hill and Meagher (1999), the uses of theories and project framing and literature in a particular qualitative research project can be at two internal to the levels, as follows: project. Three ways to use 1. At the project framing level: researchers can use related theories theory in qualitative and literature to identify debates and available knowledge in the research: specific areas of interest they intend to research. Then, based 1. Theory-testing on the literature review, they need to clarify how the proposed 2. Theory-building projects can contribute to the knowledge in the field. 3. Iterative process. 2. As internal to the project: the identified variables in those related theories and literature are used through the following research processes, including the data collection, data analysis and discussions of the research outcomes. Throughout these activities, the relevant theories and literature involve the researchers’ choices of data classifications, orders, categories and analytic strategies for organizing their collected data and other research materials. A typical debate among social researchers concerning the use of theory in qualitative analysis is whether it should verify or develop theory. In other words, it is essential to design whether the theory should be used in the deductive or inductive modes. Recall from Chapter 1, qualitative research is predominantly recognized as an inductive reasoning design concerning the richness and complex characteristics of qualitative data. These characteristics are claimed to be challenging to use the uniform analytical, inductive approach preferred by quantitative methods. However, Taylor et al. (2015) suggest that the choice should not be so starkly, meaning choosing how to utilize existing theories in qualitative research can be flexible. They emphasize that the qualitative research process is not necessarily limited to inductive practice. Instead, the deductive design can be included in the process, depending on the research aims. Agreeing with Taylor et al. (2015), Hill and Meagher (1999) assert that qualitative research can use theory for designing a hypothesis-testing procedure or a story-telling method with the aim of theory construction. Similarly, Creswell and Creswell (2017) points out variation in theory use in qualitative research, including the use at the beginning to form a conceptual framework, throughout the analysis process to provide the theoretical lens, or developed at the end point as the research outcome. Hence, considering the multiple ways for qualitative researchers to design how theory is used in their studies, qualitative methods can

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 47 be classified into three types, as outlined in Figure 2.3 below: theory-testing research, theory-building research and iterative research, which allows the back-and-forth between inductive and deductive processes in one study. Figure 2.3: Three Alternatives for Using Theory in Qualitative Research Source: the author. Discussions on how different qualitative methods use theory are discussed next. Theory-Testing Qualitative Research Process Theory-testing research uses It is broadly accepted that the inductive process is predominant in deductive reasoning. qualitative research because, often, researchers choose a qualitative study concerning the lack of existing theory to adequality explains a studied phenomenon (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Even in economics, which Hill and Meagher (1999) claims to be primarily dominated by qualitative methods with a preference for scientific, mathematical models and statistics, the inductive process can also become a predominant method in specific economic inquiries. The limitation of using a deductive approach is that economic science essentially concerns people, whose rich details of their lives and beings cannot always be captured or communicated in a numerical framework (Hill and Meagher, 1999). Therefore, the choice of qualitative research usually aims at exploratory explanation derived through inductive reasoning approaches. Despite the predominant inductive design there are two qualitative methods, case study and action research, allow the inclusion of deductive, or theory-testing, techniques to play a leading role in qualitative research. When conducted qualitatively, the two methods similarly use theory from the beginning to form a conceptual framework filled with hypothetical variables of related discipline-specific theories. This part is recognized as the inductive phase. The essence of this procedure is to help inform the researcher about what is learnt deductively in the knowledge field (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Although the theory is not tested as it might be in typical experiment research, this characterized theory-testing phase help inform what theoretical aspects should be included in the investigation and what should not.

48 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Later, given the detailing and richness of the collected qualitative data guided by the pre-identified framework, consequent testing and logically comparisons between the theory and the data can be made. The outcome of this inductive technique is known as \"plausible rival hypotheses\" (Yin, 2017). They can be used to verify what existing theories can adequately explain the studied case or situation and what cannot. Then, the inductive procedure can continue concerning the exploration derived from what is being investigated. For qualitative methods, deductive reasoning is often seen in case studies and action research, as the two approaches require predominant variables to form the investigative boundaries of participatory conditions as their investigation basis. Two parts of theory- Accordingly, discussions on the results of case studies and action testing qualitative research outcomes usually consist of two essential parts. First, the research are the initial deductive process which concerns the theory-testing initial deductive procedure, or the verification of the chosen existing theories. process and indictive Another part concerns the inductive domination of choosing the domination. qualitative method aiming at the critical exploration, of those being studied, details below. 1. Initial Deductive Process Firstly, discussions concerning the theory-testing, or deductive, process focus on verifying existing theories regarding what part of the studied case (in the case study) or situation (in action research) can adequately be explained by the current theories and what cannot. 2. Inductive Domination Secondly, given the predominant inductive of the chosen qualitative method design, the researcher can continue with the inductive activities towards theory building from observations and intuitive understanding gathered from the qualitative data. Thus, the research outcomes of theory-testing qualitative research often cover both theoretical verification and exploratory explanation of the inquired case or situation. See Case 2.1, \"Adaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: an Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand\" by Polhong et al. (2022), as a practical example on adopting a theory-testing procedure in a qualitative research.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 49 Case 2.1: Theory-Testing in a Qualitative Research Case 2.1: Case 2.1 is a practical example of a theory-testing qualitative Theory-Testing in a research. Polhong et al. (2022) employed a qualitative case Qualitative Research study method to examine the adaptation of strategies to \"Adaptation Strategies increase business competitiveness in the digital era. Their to Increase Business study was intrinsically interested in how local freight firms Competitiveness in the in a border province in the Northeast region of Thailand Digital Era: an adopted digitalization to increase business competitiveness Empirical Study of and economic values, considering that logistics was one of Local Freight Firms in the targeted industries of Thailand 4.0, the national economic Thailand\" development concept. Thus, the unit of analysis was the (Polhong et al., 2022) business adaptation of business firms selected for the case. The case’s bounded system was constructed following the logistic management theory by Ballou (2004) to form three investigative aspects of inventory, transport, and location strategies. These propositions were theoretically claimed to be the three fundamental areas for business development of the logistics industry. In addition to the theory-testing procedure, the qualitative method, using qualitative content analysis, allowed the discovery of other elements of business development and competitiveness specific to the selected region of the study. As a result, in addition to critically verifying the use of existing theories to explain the chosen case from Thailand, the findings from the initial deductive stage also delivered outcomes outside of the predetermined conception of the case study’s boundary. This additional findings was exploratory and relevant to the specific characteristics of the studied case as follows: the importance of national policy developed using the industry 4.0 notion; the influence of traditional family business management; the locational advantage of international infrastructure; and the management of human resources providing the context of a developing country. The study eventually proposed a theoretical concept for adopting digitalization to promote the business competitiveness of regional local family fright firms in developing systems.

50 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Theory-building Theory-Building Qualitative Research Process research uses inductive reasoning. Inductive research, or theory-building study, has become a suitable Qualitative research alternative for particular economic and management inquiries in projects do not which the deductive approach and the use of the theory-testing follow the logic of method are considered not suitable (Coast, 2017; Jemna, 2016). As equal probability of discussed in the previous section, theories play significant roles in selection criteria, deductive research as they serve the researcher with various often adopted by functional elements, including a series of variables and definitions, most economic assumptions, hypotheses, and testing techniques (Radović-Marković research. and Alecchi, 2016). In deductive research, decent theories serve the research design with accurate and useful predictions, leading to logical findings and critical discussions of the answers to the research question. However, unlike scientific research or physical sciences, economic and management sciences, assessing a particular theory’s validity in these subject areas is critically difficult, considering their involvement with people and their lives. Moreover, human experiences, actions, and interactions within the social world are subjectively different by nature, making the validity of existing theories even more challenging. Over time, many economic and management theories have failed in their accuracy and real-world predictions of practical concepts concerning, for example, the major economic and financial crises in reality. Various challenges of employing inductive research are raised concerning the flexibility, variety, and unstandardized of the qualitative techniques themselves. For instance, as pointed out by Hill and Meagher (1999), qualitative research projects do not follow the logic of equal probability of selection criteria, often adopted by most economic research. Moreover, the criteria for selecting the key informants to be the data source used in embarking on the inductive processes can also be diverse; this diversity makes the traditional research assessment, such as replicability and generalizability, questionable. Hence, a developed theoretical explanation, which is the outcome of theory-building research, faces crucial criticism for its validity, verifiability and reflexivity. Concerning the criticisms of inductive qualitative research, however, the theory development resulting from this research type does not originally deliberate to favor the traditional scientific research assessment criteria rooted in the positivist paradigm. Instead, according to Yin (2017), it should be used on the basis for analytic generalization, which is a different mean from typical scientific generalization. Creswell and Creswell (2017) point out that the function of theory is to provide a broad explanation. For the theory derived at the endpoint of inductive research, this function,

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 51 also known as theory generalizations, can be varied concerning the Two types of theories variation of processes different researchers undertake for their result from specific studied contexts and research aims. Hence, the logic of theory-building analytic generalization varies among different qualitative methods. It qualitative research: is also known in different terminologies such as pattern theories substantive and (Guba and Lincoln, 2017) and propositional generalization (Stake, formal theories. 2013). Inductive design can be employed in all types of qualitative methods, considering it is the predominant approach to qualitative research. Therefore, research can adopt the inductive approach in those commonly used qualitative economic and management research methods: phenomenology, ethnography, case study, action research, and grounded theory. Theories developed using qualitative research are classified into two types namely substantive and formal theories. 1. Substantive theory A substantive theory is a lower level theory constructed as a hypothetical explanation applicable to specific research settings such as particular situations, cases, circumstances, or contextual conditions (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The theory-building process involves only a specific settings or informants being studied (Taylor et al., 2015). Thus, comparable characteristics or attributes are necessary for implicating theoretical interests across different settings. 2. Formal theory A formal theory, also known as grand theory (Charmaz, 2014; Yin, 2017), is a higher level theory with higher explanatory power across a range of situations. The theory construction usually involves collecting and analyzing data across various realities and settings. The formal theory provides hypothetical variables in an integrative framework with a higher level of generalizability. Despite using the inductive process, qualitative research design in economic and management sciences needs to connect to relevant theories of the discipline-specific areas (Oast and De Allegri, 2018; Symon and Cassell, 2012). Even though the primary purpose of using qualitative techniques in exploration, especially in the areas in which deductive research is not suitable, outcomes of the study still need to be located within the knowledge in the fields. That is, the explorations will eventually join the knowledge community. Intellectual connections are, therefore, necessary. Such links can be made as qualitative researchers identify investigative aspects, themes,

52 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.2: or data analysis attributes. See Case 2.2, \"Strategies of Logistics Cost Theory-Building Management for Rice Exports by Sea Transportation to the Economic Research International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters\" by Noisopha from Thailand and Wangkananoni (2022), and Case 2.3, \"Doing ‘Qualitative Strategies of Logistics Research’ in Economics: Two Examples and Some Reflections\" by Cost Management for Hill and Meagher (1999), as two practical examples for Rice Exports by Sea theory-building economic research projects. Transportation to the International Case 2.2: A Theory-Building Economic Research Marketing: A Case of Case 2.2 is a practical example of theory-building economic Large Exporters\" research from Thailand. (Noisopha and Wangkananoni, Noisopha and Wangkananoni (2022) used the grounded 2022) theory method to develop a model to explain the logistics cost management strategies for large Thai exporters’ rice exports by sea transportation to the international market. The researcher employed a qualitative method, including document analysis, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions as the data collection tools. The findings, or the developed model of cost strategies, showed the two ways of logistics cost structure before rice exports by sea. One was the cost of loading the rice onto large ships, and the other was the cost of the containers. In the model, they outlined the different activities, procedures and costs relevant to these two cost structure components. The researcher recognized the developed model as a theoretical model of the logistics cost structure. Therefore, they asserted this exploratory discovery as contributing to the knowledge expected to help enhance the logistics cost management in the rice exporting industry by importing packaging from abroad, where the cost was lower than the domestic suppliers. Also, they suggested changing the mode of transporting containers from using a truck to water transportation to using container vessels to reduce costs. These suggestions were expected to help enhance the competitiveness of Thai rice exporters.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 53 Case 2.3: A Theory-Building Economic Research Case 2.3: Case 2.3 is another practical example of a theory-building Theory-Building economic research. Hill and Meagher (1999), from Australia, Economic Research used an inductive qualitative method to conduct research in \"Doing ‘Qualitative an all-women trade union in India named Self Employed Research’ in Women’s Association (SEWA). The study evaluated the impact Economics: Two of SEWA on the economic and social security of women Examples and Some working in the Indian informal sector. In terms of Reflections\" the epistemological stance, they positioned themselves, the (Hill and Meagher, researchers, as an outsider seeking to interpret the social 1999) realities of the inquired organization in the selected national settings. For the methodological design, they composed the boundary of their investigation using a case study technique. They used semi-structured interviews and the primary data collection method. The researchers chose the qualitative method concerning its exploratory nature. They considered that related literature and existing theories could not be sufficiently used to form a theoretical concept to guide the deductive investigation concerning the specific contexts of SEWA, the selected case, and India, the chosen country. Despite the limitation of related literature regarding the specific inquiry made to this particular case, they managed to use existing economic theories in various ways. They used theories to guide the construction of the case’s boundary, form the recruiting criteria for key informants, and identify the discoveries by constantly comparing what was known and what was not yet discovered in the knowledge field. The data analysis was carefully located within the logical connections with economic theories and those essential attributes emerging from the case. The process initially benefited the transparency and reflexivity of the research conduct. They asserted that these systematic and rigorous processes helped increase the credibility of the exploratory theoretical explanation they delivered as the research outcome.

54 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Iterative Research Process The third way to use theory in qualitative research is an iterative approach. Figure 2.4 outlines the basic iterative theory-building process. Figure 2.4: The Basic Iterative Theory- Building Process Iterative research is Source: Based on Radović-Marković and Alecchi (2016, p.26). an interpaly of Explanation: An iterative process is a combination of inductive and deductive and deductive reasoning approaches. Often, it requires the researcher to start inductive reasoning with the inductive approach to develop initial conceptions derived from the appraoches. data. Then, the developed theory will be used as the basis to propose a set of hypotheses requiring further data collection from within the designated investigative areas to verify the theory. Iterative process is an interplay theory-building procedure between the traditional inductive and deductive approaches. The theory-building procedure is commonly used in two qualitative data analysis techniques: hermeneutics and grounded theory analysis. The difference is that hermeneutic procedure aims at interpreting texts, while grounded theory focuses on emerging theory development (Charmaz, 2014). Nevertheless, both are recognized as a synthesis and systematic procedure. Hermeneutics economic and management research can adopt the traditional steps, known as the hermeneutic circle, as its analysis technique (Tomkins and Eatough, 2018). The circle consists of formal steps for systematically interpreting texts and the context of the happenings being studied. According to Bailesteanu (2009), these steps start with the researcher gathering the premise of knowledge relativity, researching causal relations, forming the explanation and prediction, and, finally, rationally arguing the means of the studied texts to persuade others for the correctness of the interpretation.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 55 The iterative steps of the hermeneutic practice vary considerably Hermeneutics and concerning the significant influences of the researcher as the main grounded theory instrument for interpretation. The hermeneutic interpretation is study are the two significantly influenced by self-reflective, iterative, and ongoing common methods processes of the researcher’s sense-making to develop insights into using the iterative how text is understood, given the contexts of the studied process. phenomenon (Wertz et al., 2011). Grounded Theory Study is another iterative procedure. This qualitative method focuses on the operation of interconnecting data collection, data analysis, and the eventual outcomes. Thus, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p.4) sees it as an “operationalizing methodology” in which the research procedures start with the data collection and then process it through the iterative processes for conceptualizing the emerging concepts into a body of theory. The grounded theory method requires the researcher to simultaneously employs three techniques for investigating a social inquiry of induction, deduction, and theory verification (Schwandt, 2014). Thus, the data collection and analysis are conducted simultaneously and iteratively, known as the theoretical sampling process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Using the iterative approach, grounded theory researchers attempts to codify and systematize the traditional implicit practice of qualitative data analysis into producing explicit theoretical statements. They are fundamentally concerned with open-endedness and iterative data processing for theory development. See Case 2.4, \"Grounded Theory for Assessing Economic Well-Being Loss Of Abandoned Shopping Centre Project\", by Hill and Meagher (1999), as a practical example on adopting an iterative process in a grounded theory study.

56 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.4: Iterative Case 2.4: An Iterative Process of a Grounded Theory Study Process of a Case 2.4 is a practical example of an grounded theory research Grounded Theory using an iterative reasoning as the researcher journeyed Study through the research process. \"Grounded Theory for Ngadimin et al. (2018) employed a grounded theory Assessing Economic study to measure the opportunity loss of employment in Well-Being Loss Of an abandoned shopping center project in Malaysia. The Abandoned Shopping researchers outlined the iterative process of the research as Centre Project\" in Case 2.4 Figure. The method used was an interplay between the inductive and deductive approaches starting with (Ngadimin et al., constructing the scope of investigation using the theory of 2018) employment density. See also As seen in Case 2.4 Figure, the researchers did not use Case 2.4 Figure the theory to guide the analysis of the data. Instead, the theory only helped delineate the research scope. The initial analytic reasoning only primarily started with a ground survey of comparable properties relevant to the inquired issues of the opportunity loss of employment. Then the data collection began, given the identified scope of the investigation. The researchers gradually constructed the emerging theoretical concepts through data analysis and used them to guide further data collection, data analysis, and hypothesis testing. These multiple repeating processes continued until they were finally able to conclude the findings concerning the research questions. This iterative research process eventually delivered a body of knowledge in assessing economic well-being concerning urban unemployment in the inquired setting, the abandonment of the selected shopping center project in Malaysia.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 57 Case 2.4 Figure: Illustrating an Iterative Process of a Grounded Theory Study, based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1144) Source: Based on Ngadimin et al. (2018, p.1144). Explanation: Case 2.4 Figure is a practical example of how an economic research illustrated an iteartive process of a grounded theory study. Ngadimin et al. (2018) used grounded theory to examine the opportunity loss of employment due to abandoned shopping center development projects. This flowchart shows the four steps of the iterative approaches of the grounded theory method. In STEP 1, the researchers surveyed comparable properties and hypothetical situations relevant to the preliminary literature of the theory of employment density. This initial step is inductive and open- ended. Moving on to STEP 2 and STEP 3, the researchers started an initial analysis which resulted in three emerging ideas on specific areas related to their research focus, opportunity loss of employment. Before moving to STEP 4, the researchers revisited the previous steps. The multiple revisits guided the revision of the early hypothesis. Then, once well revised, they moved to STEP 4 for the theory-testing process before finalizing the research outcomes.

58 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 2.3.4 Qualitative Outcomes Qualitative research has fundamental approaches to qualitative data analysis, regardless of the specific choice of chosen qualitative technique. The analysis procedure leading to the production of the ultimate outcome usually performs coding, categorizing, conceptualizing and producing descriptive or explanative rationales (Miles et al., 2014). Despite the similarities in the data analysis approaches, the eventual outcome is an essential feature that makes one qualitative method differ from the others. Some processes mainly aim at descriptive or story-telling results, while some expect to provide causal explanations with theoretical interests. Six characterized Among those qualitative methods often used by economic and qualitative outcomes: management research, the results of phenomenology, ethnology, and 1. Experiencial narrative study are recognized as a type of rich descriptive description outcomes. Phenomenology typically delivers experiential 2. Culterual descriptions and human interactions within a specific inquired desctiption phenomenon. Ethnography constructs a cultural description of the 3. Perceptive human experiences in the inquired settings. Finally, narrative study description often presents the perceptive descriptions of the studied individuals. 4. Bounded intrinsic For those expecting to provide causal explanations with explanation theoretical interests, their outcomes can be categorized into two 5. Intervening types: with or without any leading theoretical concepts. The data insightful analysis of case studies and action research often begins with explanation 6. Emerging causual explanation. pre-identified concepts from the preliminary literature review. Their investigative designs of study propositions leading to expected outcomes are often associated with the knowledge relativity within the specific discipline. Another method to deliver a causal explanation as an outcome is the grounded theory method. However, unlike the other two, grounded theory prefers to minimize the use of existing theories in guiding the production of outcomes. It usually uses them as a general guide for the initial start to define appropriate sources of research data. Once started, the data will guide further multiple data collection and analysis of the theoretical sampling technique. Then the research results will be formed grounded in the theoretical insights of the data, known as an emerging theory or an emerging causal explanation.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 59 Table 2.1 is the characterization of expected outcome to be derived from using different qualitative techniques. Table 2.1: Different Approaches to Qualitative Research and the Outcomes Source: the author. 2.4 When to Choose Grounded Theory Method Based on the discussions of different qualitative techniques from the previous sections, there are four critical considerations regarding when to specifically choose a grounded theory study. The four fundamental factors that led the researcher to choose the grounded theory approach will be covered in this section. 2.4.1 To Have Variable-Oriented Investigative Focus The first reason involves the variable-oriented investigative focus of grounded theory. Despite the possibility and flexibility of mixing qualitative designs, different methods have different investigative focuses. To remind, the different focuses are based on different philosophical orientations ranging from experience (phenomenology), culture (ethnography), perception (narrative study), specific case (case study), participatory action (action research) and variable-oriented (grounded theory). The specific orientation makes each method distinct form the others. Therefore, grounded theory is recommended as a suitable choice when theoretical interests are the central focus of the study. This method allows the researcher to focus on identifying variables and examining their theoretical relationships. 2.4.2 To Use an Etic Perspective A grounded theory study is recommended for qualitative research in which the researcher decides to interpret the social meanings from the outsider’s viewpoint, or the etic. In terms of selecting an etic

60 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research point of view, the researcher should not rely on any existing theories or methodological tools other than the subjective meaning of action of the individuals or social interactions under investigation and the contextual conditions. Research choosing the etic view usually prefers to minimize the researcher’s influence, Gray (2014) asserts that it is best to allow phenomena to speak for themselves, unadulterated by the researcher’s preconceptions. Choosing a grounded study as an appropriate method is consistent with the decision to investigate the case from an etic perspective. This viewpoint, as Miles et al. (2014) suggest, is appropriate for variable-oriented studies in which relationships of social elements (so-called variables) are the focus of social interpretation. 2.4.3 To Use Iterative Theoretical Sampling Process Similar to other exploratory qualitative techniques, this method is recognized as a theory-building process. However, the methodological design which makes this method distinctive is its iterative theoretical sampling process. This process allows multiple interplays between the data collection and analysis practices throughout the study until the researcher develops the theory. Therefore, one of the key reason for choosing grounded theory is the researcher appreciate the advantage of the iterative theoretical sampling process of this method. 2.4.4 To Explore Emerging Causal Explanation as the Outcome Finally, the grounded theory selection is associated with its outcome of delivering a theory emerging from the data. The method assists the study in exploring the emerging causal explanation of the studied phenomenon in a broad range for being characterized as the unit of analysis, such as the inquired settings, individuals’ experiences, organizations, and social happenings. Also, considering the two types of theory to possible result from theory-building research, the outcome of grounded theory research can be either substantive or formal, depending on the scope of inquiry the study proposes to investigate. This section has provided further details on the reasons for explicitly choosing this method concerning the methodological concentrations of using iterative reasoning and research design, its variable-oriented, and the expected outcome in the form of emerging causal explanation, as summarized in Figure 2.5.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 61 Figure 2.5: Key Characteristics of Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. Explanation: Choosing grounded theory as an appropriate method comprises eight fundamental reasons. The first five are the same as the selection of the qualitative approach. The latter four reasons help to emphasize the specific choice of the grounded theory method. Researchers should specifically select this method when they seek for iterative research approach with variable-oriented as the investigative focus using the etic view and intend to deliver emerging causal explanation to the inquiry as the research outcome. Given the explanations provided in this section on considering choosing a grounded theory method, see Case 2.5, \"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\" by Chanthes (2021), as a practical example on how a researcher explains the grounded theory selection .

62 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.5: Explaining Case 2.5: Explaining the Grounded Theory Selection the Grounded Case 2.5 is a managerial economic research clarifying Theory Selection the grounded theory method selection. Chanthes (2021) \"Using a Grounded chose a grounded theory study as an appropriate method Theory Method in an for examining the knowledge-based entrepreneurship Empirical Case Study development in a community enterprise in Thailand. The of Knowledge-Based empirical setting of this project was designed as a case Entrepreneurship study which helped to bound the scope and propositions Development in an of the investigation. Following the discussions on the Organic Rice Farming methodological design, Chanthes (2021) concluded the Community selection of the grounded theory method as quoted below Enterprise in [p.76]: Thailand\" (Chanthes, 2021) \"The search for a suitable research method must be clarified regarding the term ’grounded theory’ and ’case study’ as a research method; this study applied the case study approach to defining the investigative boundary and associated research propositions. Given the case setting, the researcher identified the unit of analysis as the individual’s experiences involving the enterprise’s knowledge-based entrepreneurship development; the inquiry made into this empirical setting was not a case-oriented seeking to comprehensively understand the organisational behaviour. Instead, when selecting the research method, the researcher looked for a technique that would examine the determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship development in the chosen case. For this reason, the researcher chose the grounded theory approach considering the investigative focus of variable.\"

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 63 2.5 Flexible Qualitative Designs In practice, qualitative research design can be very flexible. It can Case 2.6: Flexible also be a mixture of different methodological designs from various Qualitative Research methods. For instance, a narrative study technique can be used in an Design with Multiple ethnographic study to explore people’s perceptions regarding Techniues, various economic issues. See Case 2.6, \"Not ‘My Economy’: A Ethnographic Political Ethnographic Study of Interest in the Economy\" by Killick Narrative Study (2021), as a practical example for a flexible qualitative research \"Not ‘My Economy’: A design with multiple techniques of referred to as an ethnographic Political Ethnographic narrative study. Study of Interest in the Economy\" Case 2.6: Ethnographic Narrative Study (Killick, 2021) Case 2.6 is a practical example of the flexible design of qualitative research combining two techniques of ethnography and narrative study in economic inquiry. Killick (2021) conducted an empirical economic research combining these two techniques and delivers the research outcome as a mixture of perceptive and cultural descriptions of the studied economic system. They undertook an ethnographic study between 2016 and 2018 with residents of an English city to explore people’s perceptions of the economic phenomenon. The researcher interviewed 60 participants, asking about their perceptions of significant economic issues, such as Brexit, happening during the study period. The research outcome was drawn on empirical evidence focusing on the everyday political economy (EPE) tradition, exploring how people in the studied city perceived politicians’ narratives. The subjective views of the informants were examined to deliver research results consisting of three main themes in elite constructions of the economy, with the critical comparisons between high and low-income participants: people’s interest in the economy, the bedrock of welfare, and the acceptance of elite construction of the economy.

64 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Case 2.7: Flexible As another example, a research project can use a bounded system Qualitative Research design of the case study technique to clarify the scope of the Design with Multiple investigation and then use the experience-oriented focus of the Techniues, phenomenology method to investigate the experiences and Phenomenological interactions of the informants and the settings of the study. See Case Case Study 2.7, \"A Phenomenological Case Study: Strategy Development in \"A Phenomenological Small and Medium Retail Enterprises in Greece during Recession\" by Case Study: Strategy Theodoridis (2014), as a practical example of a flexible qualitative Development in Small research design with multiple techniques, referred to as a and Medium Retail phenomenological case study. Enterprises in Greece during Recession\" Case 2.7: Phenomenological Case Study (Theodoridis, 2014) Case 2.7 is a practical example of a flexible design of qualitative study combining case study and phenomenological techniques. Theodoridis (2014) conducted a study motivated by the researcher’s desire to comprehend how strategic decision- making occurs in small and medium-sized retail businesses in Greece. The focus of the study was on the retail location decision-making process, as locational decisions are the most important strategic decision for a retail company, as they involve massive and typically long-term tying investments. The researcher studied the strategic decision-making process of individuals in small and medium-sized retail companies in Greece during the country’s economic recession. The researcher used a phenomenological case study method with a boundary to examine the locational decisions which represented the major strategic decision for the selected companies as they involved massive and long-term bounding investments throughout the recession period. The flexible qualitative research designs also apply to grounded theory selection, depending on research questions, aims, and objectives. For example, in a case study, which clarifies the bounded system of the case to be investigated, a grounded theory can be chosen for the analysis procedure to help construct an emerging theoretical explanation for the selected case. See Case 2.8, \"Digital Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Become a Challenge?\" by Ivanov (2020), and Case 2.9, \"Grounded Theory and Action Research as Pillars for Interpretive Information Systems Research: A Comparative Study\" Abdel-Fattah (2015), two practical examples of flexible qualitative research design with multiple Techniques, referred to as a grounded theory case study research.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 65 Case 2.8: A Grounded Theory Case Study Research Case 2.8: Flexible Case 2.8 is a practical example of grounded theory research Qualitative Research using a case study technique for designing the case’s Design with Multiple investigative boundary. Ivanov (2020) used the grounded Techniues, Grounded theory method to examine the emerging role of digital Theory Case Study innovation. The researcher employed a case study design to Research clarify the empirical setting and the investigative boundary. \"Digital Innovation in Using the boundary, the selected organizations for this Manufacturing Firms: empirical study were manufacturing firms with a long Why Smart Connected tradition in physical product development. The central focus Products Become a of this study was the use of digitalization to enhance product Challenge?\" characteristics, with the firm focusing on user-centricity and (Ivanov, 2020) integrating services into physical products. The researcher positioned the study as the interpretive research paradigm and chose the grounded theory method with an exploratory aim of the inquired case study. Thus, the expected novel knowledge to be delivered as the research outcome was an important opportunity to advance and understand how digital innovation emerges in firms in the manufacturing industry. Case 2.9: Grounded Theory and Action Research Case 2.9: Flexible Case 2.9 is another example is the grounded theory method Qualitative Research can be employed in participatory action research, in which the Design with Multiple research settings have been predetermined or intervened. Techniues, Grounded Theory and Action Abdel-Fattah (2015) employed two research techniques, Research grounded theory and action research, for evaluating e- \"Grounded Theory government systems for the University Enrolment Service and Action Research in Egypt. The researcher used the specific technique of as Pillars for theoretical sampling of grounded theory to perform an Interpretive iterative process of multiple data collection and analysis until Information Systems the study has saturated its theoretical explanation for the Research: A designated setting. Comparative Study\" (Abdel-Fattah, 2015) The research outcomes were exploratory results from the two techniques, which they researcher specified as Grounded Evaluation Framework (GEF) and Action Research Evaluation Framework (AREF). The researcher asserted that the combination of two methods helped increasing the explorative ability and reliability of the results.

66 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 2.6 Chapter Summary and Key Terms This chapter started with revisiting qualitative turn in economic and management research. It introduced various qualitative research methods often employed in economic and management research, including phenomenology, ethnography, narrative study, case study, action research, and grounded theory. Although qualitative research is inductive-dominant, the chapter has explained that the details of its investigative procedure are not limited to inductive. Instead, it is possible to include inductive, deductive, and iterative practices. The third procedure is the interplay between the two former ways of using theory in qualitative studies. The objective of this chapter is to guide students and researchers on the method consideration of when to choose grounded theory as a suitable method for their proposed research. Therefore, it was necessary that the chapter critically compared the various ways concerning three essential aspects of methodological design: the use of theory, the investigative focus, and the expected outcome of each. As a result, the thorough comparisons throughout the chapter suggested four criteria for choosing a grounded theory study as follows: 1. When the investigation is variable-oriented; 2. When the researcher chooses the etic tradition as the interpretive perspective; 3. When the study requires the advantage of using an iterative research process; and 4. When it aims at exploring emerging causal explanation as the research outcome. The four criteria help indicate that grounded theory study is an iterative process with a dominant inductive procedure. Thus, it is recognized as a theory-building method of variable-oriented with the objective of delivering an outcome of an emerging theory grounded in the research data. The next chapter will explain three types of grounded theory research. Key Terms Action research, 42 Iterative process, 54 Theory-testing, 47 Ethnography, 41 Narrative study, 41 Theory-building, 50 Formal theory, 145 Phenomenology, 40 Grounded theory, 43 Substantive theory, 144

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 67 2.7 Exercises 1. Explain the difference between substantive and formal theories. 2. Explain the theoretical sampling technique of the grounded theory method. Then discuss how it is different from the procedure of other qualitative methods. 3. Critically review the research papers used as examples for this chapter, see the references below, then discuss each paper as follows: • The use of theory; • The investigative focus; • The types of research outcomes, either descriptive or theoretical explanation; • Discuss the research process: does it use an inductive, deductive, combination of both or an iterative research process? 4. Critically review the example research papers again. Which article presents grounded theory research? Do you agree with the selection of grounded theory for the research it presents? Discuss. 5. Propose possible research questions to require a qualitative research technique, but a grounded theory study may not be suitable. Then explain why? References Bailesteanu, G. (2009) ‘Hermeneutics and Economics’, Timisoara Journal of Economics, 2(3(7)), pp. 121–128. 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). Chevalier, J. and Buckles, D. (2019) Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351033268. Coast, J. (2017) Qualitative Methods for Health Economics. Rowman & Littlefield International Limited (G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series).

68 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 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. Currall, S. C. and Towler, A. J. (2003) ‘Research methods in management and organizational research: toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques’, in Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., and Teddlie, C. B. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 513–526. Dumez, H. and Jeunemaître, A. (2005) ‘The narrative approach in economics’, Revue Economique, 56, pp. 983–1006. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Gray, D. (2014) Doing Research in the Real World, 3rd edition. SAGE Publications. Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000) ‘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). Ivanov, M. (2020) ‘Digital Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: Why Smart Connected Products Become a Challenge?’, in Baghdadi, Y., HarfoucheA., and Musso, M. (eds) ICT for an Inclusive World. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation. Cham: Springer, pp. 581–590. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-34269-2_40. 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.

Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research 69 Killick, A. (2021) ‘Not “My Economy”: a Political Ethnographic Study of Interest in the Economy’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. SAGE Publications, 24(1), pp. 171–186. doi: 10.1177/13691481211007064. Kincheloe, J. L. and McLaren, P. (2011) ‘Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research’, in. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, pp. 285–326. Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (2016) ‘Qualitative and Ethnographic Methods in Economics’, in Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Heterodox Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing (Handbooks of research methods and applications), pp. 135–164. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Nix, E. et al. (2019) ‘Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low-Income Housing in Delhi, India.’, Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ), 3(4), p. 1800054. doi: 10.1002/gch2. 201800054. Noisopha, S. and Wangkananoni, W. (2022) ‘Strategies of Logistics Cost Management for Rice Exports by Sea Transportation to the International Marketing: A Case of Large Exporters’, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University, 16(2), pp. 25–36. Oast, J. and De Allegri, M. (2018) ‘Qualitative Methods in Health Economics’, in Oxford research encyclopedia: economics and finance. Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190625979.013.93. Partington, D. (2002) ‘Grounded theory’, in Essential Skills for Management Research. SAGE Publications, pp. 136–157. Piore, M. J. (2006) ‘Qualitative research: does it fit in economics?1’, European Management Review. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 3(1), pp. 17–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500053. Polhong, T., Chanthes, S. and Songsrirote, N. (2022) ‘Adaptation Strategies to Increase Business Competitiveness in the Digital Era: an Empirical Study of Local Freight Firms in Thailand’, in 2022 the 5th International Conference on Information Management and Management Science (IMMS 2022). New York: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3564858.3564908. Radović-Marković, M. and Alecchi, B. A. (2016) Qualitative Methods in Economics. Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315532257.

70 Chapter 2. Qualitative Economics and Management Research Schwandt, T. A. (2014) The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE Publications. Stake, R. E. (2013) Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford Publications. Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (2012) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. SAGE Publications. Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M. (2015) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Wiley. Theodoridis, C. (2014) ‘A Phenomenological Case Study: Strategy Development in Small and Medium Retail Enterprises in Greece during Recession’, in SAGE Research Methods Cases Part 1. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. doi: 10.4135/978144627305014539099. Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2018) ‘Hermeneutics: Interpretation, Understanding and Sense-making’, in Cassell, A., Cunliffe, A. L., and Grandy, G. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 185–1200. Von Wright, G. (1993) ‘Two Traditions’, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice. London: SAGE Publications (DEH313 : Principles of social and educational research), pp. 9–13. Wertz, F. J. et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. Guilford Publications. Yin, R. K. (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

C3 Three Types of Grounded Theory 3.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Qualitative researchers came to know the grounded theory method Three types of in the 1960s when Barney Glaser and first introduced this method in grouned theory, their famous book The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The page 71: two American scholars set out this method as a more defined and Classical grouned systematic procedure for qualitative data collection and analysis theory (Goulding, 2002). By developing this method, they were motivated to Pragmatic grouned confront criticism of the credibility of qualitative research for the theory uniformity of its inductive theory development procedure. Positivist grouned theory Glaser and Strauss (1967) claimed that this method is developed based on a scientific approach. They designed its investigative Comparing the three process to use a systematic and synthesis process of data collection types of grounded and analysis to find scientific truth of social meanings with increased theory research, quality of accuracy and credibility compared to other typical page 82 inductive procedures (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory was therefore initially introduced as \"a powerful rationale for the logic and legitimacy of qualitative research\" to be promoted via a rigorous and transparent theory construction process (Wertz et al., 2011, p.56). However, since its introduction in the 1960s, its employment has grown in multiple directions. First, starting from Glaser and Strauss themselves later perceived the philosophical traditions to underpin the use of grounded theory differently. Then, the development of grounded theory in the later time differs from the first two directions, which emphasizes the objective viewpoint of the positivist root; it chooses the interpretivism stance and the construction of theory with the

72 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory influence of subjective beliefs and values in the interpretation of social studies and human experiences Charmaz (2014). Consequently, the recent uses of grounded theory are recognized to be based in three different directions: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory studies. Figure 3.1: Three Alternatives of Grounded Theory Research Three separate Source: the author. directions of the grounded theory Considering that, grounded theory has been growing in separate method: directions. Over decades, different researchers claimed different 1. Glasserian philosophical underpinnings with departed views towards the grounded theory appropriate use of the technique when undertaken empirically to 2. Straussian study a diverse range of research questions in various social grounded theory disciplines. This chapter will explain the three ways to recognize 3. Constructivist different types of grounded theory studies: classical, pragmatic and grounded theory. constructivist grounded theory. The chapter is going to outline the differences and similarities regarding the underpinning philosophies of the three alternatives. The appendix of this chapter will provide examples of empirical economic and management studies and discuss various ways in which researchers practically adopt different grounded theory designs for their studies. 3.2 Separate Directions of Grounded Theory Research The first direction is commonly referred to as Glaserian grounded theory (Åge, 2014) or Glaser’s root grounded theory (Kaushik and Walsh, 2019). Glaser supports the positivist belief and asserts that human phenomenon is seen as the object of the study (Åge, 2014). Unlike Glaser’s, the second direction is known as Straussian grounded theory and Strauss’s root ascent to interpretive pragmatism (Bryant, 2017). This type of grounded theory belief in objective determination with the attached subjective insights in the construction of theory (Kaushik and Walsh, 2019). The third direction, known as constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Mills et al., 2006), differs from the first two directions concerning the different ontological viewpoints. Positivist and pragmatic grounded theory studies are rooted in the perceptions of the two originators of the method, which believed in objectively determined social meanings. The third direction, however, believes

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 73 in the influences of the subjectivity of both researchers and those under the study. Furthermore, the constructivist grounded theory follows the interpretivism epistemology paradigm, which accepts subject values and biases as an essential part in constructing a theory. For this reason, it is also referred to as (Cassiani et al., 1996; Levers, 2013). By employing this approach, the researcher seeks to construct a theory using their insight and sensibilities to find a theoretical explanation of the studied phenomenon to emerge from the research data (Wertz et al., 2011). Despite the similar conserved fundamental principle for open-endedness and synthesis iterative data processing for theory development, each alternative claims different philosophical beliefs, hence various designs and management of the grounded theory studies. That is, researchers who chose to follow different grounded theory directions have departing views towards how a grounded theory study should be undertaken to deliver credible results. This section will discuss the different development and underpinning philosophies of the three grounded theory research types. 3.2.1 Classical Positivist Grounded Theory Glasserian grounded theory is a classical Positivist grounded theory, also known as classical grounded theory believing in (Timonen et al., 2018), is a type of qualitative method rooted in the post-positivist post-positivist paradigm, which believes that the social world is an ontology and objective reality that exists externally. It is also widely referred to as epistemology. the Glaserian grounded theory concerning the original ideas of Glaser and Strauss, which it determinedly follows. The two scholars initially introduced the grounded theory in the 1960s (Åge, 2014). Positivist grounded theory maintains the original concept emphasizing that qualitative research can employ scientific procedure, preferred by quantitative and natural sciences researchers, to study social inquiries and deliver objectively determined logical explanations. Glaser and Strauss developed this method concerning the undue emphasis on verification of theorizing in qualitative social studies. These studies were often criticized for neglecting the efforts on the centrality of predictions and applications of inductive theory-building. They argued, strongly motivated by objectivism and positivist approach, that a good theory should work well in the sense of predicting phenomena (Timonen et al., 2018). Thus, they co-worked on inventing grounded theory and claimed the use of the method to encounter limitations of typical inductive qualitative research regarding the verification and prediction ability. See Case

74 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Case 3.1: Classical 3.1, \"Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Grounded Theory Research\" by Randall (2012), as a practical example of a classical Study in grounded theory study in management research. Management Research Case 3.1: Classical Grounded Theory Study in Management \"Grounded theory: an Research inductive method for supply chain research\" Case 3.1 is a practical example of how supply chain research (Randall, 2012) discussed philosophical underpinnings leading to the design and employment of a grounded theory study. Randall (2012) conducted supply chain research using a grounded theory method. The study chose grounded theory as an appropriate method concerning its inductive and holistic approach. The use of grounded theory allowed the investigation to fully understand the behaviors associated with the studied phenomena, which is a complex behavioral dimension at the individual and organizational levels involving supply chain management. As part of the methodological design, the researcher discuss the underpinning research paradigms. The thorough consideration helped the researcher position the study’s investigative perspectives: either to rely on objective or subjective determinants or to choose quantitative or qualitative methods. Eventually, the researcher decided to position in the classical grounded theory, also known as the Glaserian grounded theory, and chose qualitative research as an appropriate method. After the researcher chose to conduct a classical grounded theory using qualitative data, the study designed the process filled with essential elements of the classic pattern of grounded theory to comprise multi-phase data collections, memos writing, and constant continuing constant comparisons. Then, as part of the research publication, the researcher clarified the step-by-step of the grounded theory process as a two- dimensional flow moving back and forth through the analysis and comparing concepts articulated by study participants. The eventual outcome was an emerging theory with the possibility to further theoretical sampling to test the theory before declaring its saturation. Despite being recognized as classical development, Glaserian root’s positivist grounded theory has become less popular for practical research. According to Timonen et al. (2018), the emphasis on a sole researcher or a small team moving ahead as the research conduct goes to precisely sense the theory grounded in the data now

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 75 seems in conflict with many present-day institutional requirements Glasserian grounded and practices. theorists see the social and human Furthermore, considering the emphasis on positing in the phenomenon as the positivist epistemology, trying to build an objectively determined object of the study. theory has increasingly been criticized for contradicting the nature of exploratory social studies (Bryant, 2017). That is, by claiming the positivist tradition for the ontological and epistemological roots, Glaser denied using traditional scientific research assessment of reliability, validity, and generalizability. Instead, Glaser (1978) suggested alternative research reflection for grounded theory to use the criteria of fit, work, relevance, and modifiable. Hence, objectivist scholars not convinced by Glaser’s recommendation often criticize the rigor of classical grounded theory as questionable. The following sections will explain the first type of interpretive grounded theory, known as Straussian grounded theory or pragmatic grounded theory, followed by a section dealing with constructivist grounded theory, which is another type of interpretive grounded theory. 3.2.2 Interpretive Pragmatic Grounded Theory Straussian grounded theory is interpretive Later after the foundation of grounded theory in the 1960s, Anselm pragmatic grounded Strauss, one of the two founders of grounded theory, departed from theory. Barney Glaser, regarding the different development of epistemological tradition of grounded theory method. Strauss conducted grounded theory as moving away from the traditional positivist paradigm, causing Glaser (1992) to criticize this direction as an altered version of the original discovered grounded theory. Grounded theory design of the Struass’s root does not limit the epistemology concerning how researcher make sense of the social phenomenon or human experiences being inquired, on traditional positivism as typical positivist/post-positivist research does. Instead, Straussian grounded theory is recognized as positioning in interpretivism epistemology, seeing social reality as multiple and relatively determined. Furthermore, it allows pragmatic interpretation in the investigative procedure, ultimately aiming to discover the cause-and-effect objective meanings of reality. Thus, many scholars perceive this alternative, so-called Straussian grounded theory (Bryant, 2017; Alammar et al., 2018; Randall, 2012), to be rooted in the pragmatism paradigm instead of the original stance of positivism. That is, while similarly claiming the post-positivist ontology, pragmatic grounded theory is also referred to as an interpretive grounded theory to highlight the contrast from the classical grounded theory, which believes in the positivism epistemology (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015).

76 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Given the explanation of Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory methods, Figure 3.2 outlines common discussion on the two grounded theory’s underpinning paradigms. Figure 3.2: Discussing the Grounded Theory’s Underpinning Paradigms Source: Based on Randall (2012, p.868). Explanation: The ontological roots of the grounded theory method could range from extreme positivist to extreme interpretivist beliefs. Also, it could adopt either established quantitative procedures or non-unified emerging qualitative techniques. Struassian grounded theory and Glasserian grounded theory disagree about whether researchers should lean toward positivist or interpretivist paradigms.On the one hand, for those taking an interpretive stance, their pragmatic design can be either phenomenological case studies or ethnographic semiotic studies. On the other hand, those inclined towards the positivist stance often strengthen their qualitative studies with consistency experiments, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis. Straussian grounded Pragmatic interpretive research focuses on effective actions of theorists are doing research as the primary consideration. A grounded theory of influenced by this type was co-developed by Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss pragmatisms seeing following the departed directions of Glaser’s and Strauss’s roots. It is social phenomena seen as a method with an ongoing validation, and a combination of and human induction and deduction (Timonen et al., 2018). According to Bryant experiences as (2017, p.339), \"pragmatists see action and emancipation lie at the multiple and basis of developing knowledge.\" Concerning the Pragmatist relatively philosophical tradition, Timonen et al. (2018, p.2) states that determined. grounded theory is motivated by pragmatic concerns in the \"colloquial sense of the term pragmatic\" concerning sensible, realistic, practical, feasible, and attainable. In other words, pragmatic grounded theory accepts the flexibility of qualitative research to affect the methodological choices of how the researcher approaches social meanings. It believes that social reality is multiple and can be made sense of through multiple lenses or interpretive perspectives depending on the researcher’s clarification on the approach they choose for their specific enquiry. Additionally, the method allow abductive reasoning in the ongoing theory-building process as Strübing (2007, p.595) illustrates, see Figure 3.3.

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 77 Figure 3.3: The Logic of Inquiry in Pragmatic Grounded Theory Source: Based on Strübing (2007, p.595). Explanation: The pragmatic grounded theory emphasizes flexibility in designing qualitative research. This type of grounded theory allows the possibility of multiple philosophical traditions in the theory construction. Therefore, it accepts abductive reasoning as part of the ongoing grounded theory analysis. The predictions of theoretical conceptions are allowed until the emerging theory is verified by further data collection and analysis until it delivers the ultimate findings. Strübing (2007, p.595) simplifies this logic by illustrating the ongoing process of pragmatic grounded theory. It can be seen that there are loops of (1) hypothesis, (2) deductive inference/experiment (requiring further data for hypothesis testing), (3) data collection during the empirical process under scrutiny, and (4) inductive/abductive inference (theory building grounded in the collected data). The conceptual level of the evolving theory is growing along this process until the data collection in the loop gives no new insights. This type of grounded theory relies on the researcher’s abductive attitude and multiple inferencing techniques, instead of any particular research paradigms, to lead the theory conduction. Pragmatic grounded theory has been employed in various disciplines, such as health sciences, information technology management, organizational studies, marketing, economics. See Case 3.2, \"Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies\" by Turek and Krupnik (2014), as a practical example of a pragmatic grounded theory study in economics research.

78 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Case 3.2: Pragmatic Case 3.2: Pragmatic Grounded Theory in Economics Research Grounded Theory Case 3.2 is an empirical economics research by Turek and Study in Economics Krupnik (2014). The researchers followed Strübing (2007, Research p.595)’s logic of inquiry in pragmatic grounded theory then \"Using Pragmatic employed pragmatic grounded theory in the evaluation of Grounded Theory in public policies in Poland. Turek and Krupnik (2014, p.35) the Evaluation of conducted an empirical study asking, “what was the real Public Policies\" influence of investment subsidies on the national economy?” (Turek and Krupnik, The researchers chose a pragmatic grounded theory design 2014) and collected data from small and medium enterprises See also in Poland. The theory-building processes were claimed Case 3.2 Table to include inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning throughout the data collection and analysis. Eventually, the theory was constructed as presented in Case 3.2 Table. Case 3.2 Table: Production of Results in Pragmatic Grounded Theory Study Source: Based on Turek and Krupnik (2014, p.42). Explanation: Case 3.2 Table is a practical example of pragmatic grounded theory. Turek and Krupnik (2014) used the grounded theory method with an open- mindedness to not only the theory development but also the flexible process. As part of the iterative process, the researcher discovered various incomplete observations that needed further data starting from the early coding process of the observation. The researcher allowed this incomplete process, known as abductive reasoning, to guide possible hypothetical explanations as part of the theoretical sampling. Then later, find the verification methods before completing the earlier version of the hypothetical explanation. This process is considered consistent with the logic of pragmatic grounded theory, in which the emerging approach is as equal importance as the emerging theory development.

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 79 Additionally, see Case 3.3, \"The Study of The Definition And Case 3.3: Pragmatic Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk for Premium Soy Milk: a Grounded Theory in Study of Grounded Theory\" by Kolkitchaiwan and Siriwong (2016), Management as a practical example of a pragmatic grounded theory study in Research from economics research from Thailand. Thailand \"The Study of The Case 3.3: Pragmatic Grounded Theory in Management Research Definition And from Thailand Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk: a Case 3.3 is a practical example of management research from Study of Grounded Thailand using a pragmatic grounded theory. Theory\" (Kolkitchaiwan and Kolkitchaiwan and Siriwong (2016) used the grounded Siriwong, 2016) theory method to explore the definition and market potential for premium soy milk. The first research aimed to identify the meaning of premium soy milk brand grounding in customers’ perception in the context of Thailand. The second aim was to forecast and identify a potential marketing mix and its elements that allow the creation of a new premium market segment for the future aging population. The researchers collected research data using multiple phases of the data collection with three tools: focus group discussion, observation, and not taking. The researcher claimed to minimize the researcher’s biases in the data analysis. This claim is an essential characteristic of pragmatic grounded theory. While trying to interpret the data from the observed individuals’ perspectives, the researchers tried to exclude their biases using various research triangulation techniques, including data, investigator, and theoretical triangulation. The primary reason for excluding the researcher’s biases from the theory building was relevant to the research’s aim of focusing on the customer’s perspectives in the selected market. Eventually, this management research delivered study outcomes as a substantive theory claimed to define premium soymilk products for the future aging population sector. The researcher proposed thirteen dimensions required for a soy milk product to be considered premium in the soymilk industry of Thailand. 3.2.3 Interpretive Constructivist Grounded Theory Constructivist grounded theory is a Another interpretive grounded theory is the constructivist grounded new direction of theory. This third design differs from the classical and pragmatic modern grounded grounded theory regarding the chosen ontological stance rooted in theory. anti-positivism. This type of grounded theory supports the

80 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory anti-positivist perception of the social worldview as multiple realities with the existence of subjectivity. Although the constructivist grounded theory is commonly recognized as another type of interpretive grounded theory concerning its epistemological stance on interpretivism, it is essentially different from pragmatic grounded theory regarding the otherwise claim on the ontological perspective. That is, pragmatic grounded theory preserves the ontological worldview of classical grounded theory seeing the world as an objective reality existing externally. Constructivism, however, is more decent to the anti-positivist tradition, often claimed by most qualitative researchers, and views the social world subjectively. Concerning the constructivist tradition, according to Bryant (2017), knowledge is constructed by both researcher and research participant to interpret the empirical evidence within the research context. It can be recognized that, similar to the pragmatic Strauss’s rooted grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory retains the fluidity and open-ended analysis practice of pragmatism. Additionally, it adds a vital tool, known as constructivist sensibilities, to the typical grounded theory analysis. This tool helps lead the researcher to “learn and interpret nuances of meaning and action while becoming increasingly aware of the interaction and emergent nature” of the research data and analysis (Charmaz, 2014, 184). Thus, constructivist researchers use both the research data and the researcher’s interpretation to construct a grounded theory. In doing so, the research data is considered the first order facts whereas the researcher’s interpretive analysis is the second order conception (Miles et al., 2014), see also Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: The Basic of Constructivist Theory-Building Source: the author. Explanation: The constructivist grounded theory allows the involvement of the researcher’ subjective values and biases in the interpretation of the studied phenomenon. Therefore, the theory constructed claiming this type of grounded theory as a research outcome accepts two essential components of the theory development: first-order facts from the research data and the second-order conception from the researcher’s interpretation.

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 81 See Case 3.4, \"Grounded in Practice: Using Interpretive Research Case 3.4: to Build Theory\" by Rowlands (2005), as a practical example of a Constructivist constructivist grounded theory in management research which the Grounded Theory in researcher claimed to include their subjective perceptions while Management trying to make sense of the studied problem. Research \"Grounded in Practice: Case 3.4: Constructivist Grounded Theory in Management Using Interpretive Research Research to Build Theory\" In grounded theory research by Rowlands (2005), the (Rowlands, 2005) researcher claimed the epistemological stance as an interpretive analysis of the texts drawn from the empirical research data sources. The empirical case selected for this research was a training program offered for companies in the Information Technology Industry. The program was provided for employees with recognized qualifications and competencies in networking, communications equipment, and personal computer (PC) hardware implementation. Rowlands (2005) aimed to examine why of the participation decision-making behavior and the mechanics of the how within the particular context of the research question regarding the problem of a lack of employer participation in the national scheme for promoting employee’s skills in the IT industry in Australia. The research specifically focused on understanding the inquired decision- making behavior in small and medium-sized enterprises. This research project was considered an interpretive constructivist grounded theory regarding the researcher’s claim on choosing the interpretive grounded theory to allow the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored and the situational constraints shaping this. The claim is consistent with the definition of the constructivism paradigm, as pointed out by Bryant (2017), believing that both researcher and research participant construct the knowledge to interpret the empirical evidence within the research context. The researcher designed eight steps throughout the three investigative phases, the researcher claimed the intimacy of the researcher’s analytic viewpoints to include in interpreting the observed behavior of those studied individuals. The acceptance of this involvement in trying to make sense of the studied phenomenon as interpreted from the insider’s viewpoint is a critical characteristic of constructivist grounded theory in which the researcher’s interpretive perspective is accepted to inevitably included.

82 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory It can be recognized that constructivist grounded theory renews and revitalizes the pragmatist foundations of classical theory (Charmaz, 2014). Unlike the classical procedure, which only serves positivist researchers, constructivist grounded theory can serve researchers from anti-positivism roots. For this reason, this third type of grounded theory method is seen as more flexible when employed in qualitative studies concerning the flexibility of methodological designs across related underpinning philosophies is essential. 3.3 Comparing the Three Types of Grounded Theory Research This section has discussed the underpinning research philosophies of conducting grounded theory research. Principally, a researcher choosing this method prefers its specific characteristics to suit the studies regarding the systematic, iterative theory-building process and the variable-oriented investigative focus and expects to deliver a theory developed in the form of an emerging causal explanation. Concerning the flexibility of designs, which is the fundamental property of qualitative research, grounded theory as a research methodology can offer different methods for practical investigation due to the various ontological and epistemological stances chosen by the researcher. This section has discussed the debates on this matter and then eventually presented the classification of methods into three designs: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory, see Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Alternatives for Doing Grounded Theory Research Source: the author. Fundamentally, the three types of grounded theory study similarly use iterative attempts to codify and systematize the traditional implicit practice of qualitative data analysis into producing explicit theoretical statements. However, it is essential that a grounded theory researcher specifically choose a grounded theory type claimed as the most suitable for the proposed study. Given the different histories of development, this specific choice will