1. What grounded theory is not
What grounded theory is not? Ali Soheili Literature Summary Technology Innovation Management June 18, 2009

2. Literature Review
Suddaby, Roy (2006), “What grounded theory is not?” Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.
June 18, 2009

3. Objectives
To identify common misconceptions about grounded theory from reviewing Academy Management Journals (AMJ)
To list common errors that researcher are making in conducting and presenting grounded theory research
June 18, 2009

4. Grounded Theory
Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed grounded theory as a practical method for conducting research that focuses on the interpretive process by analyzing the “the actual production of meanings and concepts used by social actors in real settings” (Gephart, 2004: 457). They argued that new theory could be developed by paying careful attention to the contrast between “the daily realities (what is actually going on) of substantive areas” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 239) and the interpretations of those daily realities made by those who participate in them (the “actors”).
June 18, 2009

5. Key Concepts
The method proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is built upon two key concepts:
Constant Comparison
Data are collected and analyzed simultaneously
Contradicts the myth of a clean separation between data collection and analysis
Theoretical Sampling
Decision of which data should be collected next are determined by theory that is being constructed
Violates the ideal of hypothesis testing since data collection direction is not determined
June 18, 2009

6. Misconceptions
Grounded theory is not an excuse to ignore the literature
Grounded theory is not presentation of raw data
Grounded theory is not theory testing, content analysis or word counts
Grounded theory is not simply routine application of formulaic technique to data
Grounded theory is not perfect
Grounded theory is not easy
Grounded theory is not an excuse for the absence of a methodology
June 18, 2009

7. Ignoring the literature
Problems:
Researcher enter the field with no knowledge
Researcher defer readings
Tackle a “well-tilled soil “ subject
Forcing researcher to test hypothesis in stead of building constructs
Suggestions:
Draw from several substantive areas
Be aware of possibility of influence of preexisting subject areas
Not to overextend the objective of research
Pay attention to previous literatures
Less extreme, but more problematic, version suggests that the researcher must defer reading existing theory until the data are collected and analyzed.
In a similar variant, researchers use grounded theory to tackle a subject that is in “well-tilled soil”—that is, a subject that has attracted a long and credible history of empirical research—and use grounded theory as a justification for ignoring prior research in formulating their study.
The real danger of prior knowledge in grounded theory is not that it will contaminate a researcher’s
perspective, but rather that it will force the researcher into testing hypotheses, either overtly or
unconsciously, rather than directly observing.
Glaser and Strauss distinguished between substantive theory,or theory grounded : Substantive theory is a strategic link in the formulation and generation of grounded formal theory. We believe that although formal theory can be generated directly from data, it is more desirable, and usually necessary, to start the formal theory from a substantive one.
June 18, 2009

8. Presentation of Raw Data
Problems:
Confusion between grounded theory / phenomenology
Failure to lift data to conceptual level
Stop data collection early- Category saturation- (there is no clean break point)
Suggestions :
The primary interest is not the story themselves, rather extracting information on social situation
Identifying higher level of abstraction of data
Continuing data collection until no evidence appears
First, there may be some confusion between grounded theory and phenomenology.
Phenomenological research emphasizes the subjective experiences of actors’ “lifeworlds”. The interviews might become subjective to stories themselves.
The second grounded theory application error that I see as producing obvious and trite output is failure to “lift” data to a conceptual level. A key element of grounded theory is identifying “a slightly higher level of abstraction—higher than the data itself”.
Finally, the researcher who has produced simplistic output may simply have stopped collecting data too early. Unlike more traditional, positivist research, grounded theory offers no clean break between collecting and analyzing data. Rather, a researcher must continue to collect data until no new evidence appears. This process, called “category saturation,” is one of the primary means of verification in grounded theory.
June 18, 2009

9. Theory testing, content analysis, word counts
Problems:
Testing hypothesis
Making truth statement about reality
Suggestions :
Purpose of grounded theory is to extract relationship between social actors and their interactions
Either create hypothesis, or test hypotheses that are too abstract
Use content analysis, word count as one of multiple contexts for acquiring data
I regularly see papers in which the authors attempt to use grounded theory methods to test hypotheses.
Keep in mind that the purpose of grounded theory is not to make truth statements about reality, but, rather, to elicit fresh understandings about patterned relationships between social actors and how these relationships and interactions actively construct reality (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
June 18, 2009

10. Routine application of formulaic technique to data
Problems:
Grounded theory a mechanical technique (e.g. Saturation after 30 interviews)
Tools are used to interpret data
Suggestions :
Grounded theory is an interpretation process
Software's can help with coding but not interpretation
Creativity depends on researcher analytical abilities
June 18, 2009

11. Grounded theory is not perfect
Problems:
Growing gap between researchers who use grounded theory and those who write about it
Quantitative approach for deductive/ grounded theory for inductive
Suggestions :
Grounded theory requires interplay between deductive and inductive approaches
Healthy tension between methodologists and practitioners is desirable
Avoid fundamentalist tendencies in their approaches
Perhaps an example will clarify these issues of messiness and tacitness. A key point of confusion
in grounded theory research is the question of knowing when saturation has occurred during data
collection. Because grounded theory research uses iteration and sets no discrete boundary between data collection and analysis, saturation is not always obvious, even to experienced researchers. Yet every submitted manuscript contains a statement that saturation occurred. It is a “box” that must be “checked off” prior to publication. The indeterminate, messy nature of saturation invites a fundamentalist drift toward positivism—the 25 interviews.
In sum, a healthy tension between methodologists and practitioners is desirable, but researchers
should try to avoid fundamentalist tendencies in how they approach and, more importantly, evaluate grounded theory research.
June 18, 2009

12. Grounded theory is not easy
Problem:
The apparent simplicity of grounded theory encourages inexperienced researchers
Suggestions :
The personality, experience, and character of a researcher become important components of the research process
Extensive and ongoing commitment to a line of theoretical research is recommended.
June 18, 2009

13. Not an excuse for the absence of methodology
Problem:
Researcher claims to perform grounded theory with little or no methodology
Lack of indication of the theoretical sensitivity
Suggestions :
Authors should explain their methodology strongly, so it will indicate how conceptual categories are generated
Presence of theoretical sensitivity
Consistency between research question and method
theoretical sensitivity—their openness to new or unexpected interpretations of the
data, the skill with which they combine literature, data, and experience, and their attention to
subtleties of meaning.
June 18, 2009