|
Introduction
Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss
1967) has been increasing in popularity in Information Systems as a
research method. This is evidenced by the growing literature that is
either discursive on philosophy and application or detailed about method
(Toraskar 1991, Orlikowski 1993, Adams & Sasse 1999, Baskerville & Pries-Heje
1999, Trauth 2000, Hughes & Howcroft 2000, Urquhart 2001). As more
researchers are taking up qualitative studies it is worth reflecting on
lessons learned from the practical application of the method. The
purpose of this paper is to provide insight for the novice researcher
and the experienced researcher coming to Grounded Theory for the first
time. For those who already have experience in the use of the method
the paper provides further much needed discussion arising out the
method’s adaption and adoption in the IS field.
The paper is structured as
follows. It begins with a brief overview of the Grounded Theory method
and a discourse on the use of Grounded Theory in Information Systems.
An illustrative piece of research is then presented in which Grounded
Theory was used in interpretive, qualitative case studies. Following on
from that we present reflections based on the use of the method and
conclude with a set of practical considerations in the use of the method
derived from a synthesis of literature and the authors’ experience.
The Grounded
Theory Method
It is not the intention here to
present a tutorial on the method. There is a significant heritage
containing such articles. Rather the following two sections set the
scene and provide the authors’ perspective.
Grounded Theory or as it was
originally titled ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory’ (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967) is a method for the collection and analysis of
qualitative data. In the method conceptual properties and categories
may be ‘discovered’ or generated from the qualitative data by following
a number of guidelines and procedures. For IS researchers it is worth
picking out three concepts from Grounded Theory that have resonance with
the process of interpretive research and that give it its intuitive
appeal. Firstly constant comparative analysis – a procedure for
identifying conceptual categories and their properties that may be
embedded in the data. Secondly theoretical sampling by which the
conceptual categories are enriched through coding and integration.
These two procedures together lead to the development of a hierarchy of
integrated categories and lead to the emerging theory. Theory is
the third concept of note here and the usage of the term is critical.
Strauss and Corbin (1994) maintain that theory consists of
“plausible relationships proposed
among concepts and sets of concepts....... researchers are interested in
patterns of action and interaction between and among various types of
social units (i.e. actors)...... They are also much concerned with
discovering process - not necessarily in the sense of stages or phases,
but in reciprocal changes in patterns of action/interaction and in
relationship with changes of conditions either internal or external to
the process itself” (Strauss and Corbin, 1994, p.274)
They note two important features of
the theory. Firstly that they are traceable to the data and secondly
that they are ‘fluid’, that is to say the emphasis is on process and the
temporal nature of the theory. So then
‘theory’ is used in the method to refer to local empirical models
surrounding the phenomenon under study, it is not substantive. The
theory is made apparent through the production of an ‘account’
and/or associated relationship diagrams of categories.
Dey (1999) provides useful
insight into the term
“Theory focuses on how
individuals interact in relation to the phenomenon under study; it
asserts a plausible relation between concepts and sets of concepts; it
is derived from data acquired through fieldwork interviews, observations
and documents; the resulting theory can be reported in a narrative
framework or as a set of propositions” (adapted from Dey, 1999, p. 1-2)
The method of Grounded Theory has
spread to many other disciplines including research in Information
Systems. Interestingly Strauss and Corbin (1994) noted their regret
that the methodology ‘runs the risk of becoming fashionable’ and were at
pains to point out the importance of theoretically sensitised and
trained researchers. Nevertheless the use of the method in IS is
growing in popularity.
Grounded
Theory in Information Systems Research
The most notable use of Grounded
Theory in IS research is that by Orlikowski (1993) in which she presents
findings of a study into the adoption and use of CASE tools. In this
study the use of Grounded Theory was justified on the basis that it
provided ‘a focus on contextual and processual elements as well as the
action of key players associated with organizational (sic) change
elements that are often omitted in IS studies’. Although not the first
published use of Grounded Theory in IS (earlier publications include
Calloway and Ariav (1991) and Torasker (1991)) its publication in a
leading international journal provided a signpost for its future use.
The other significant aspect of this publication was its contention that
Grounded Theory fitted well with the interpretivist rather than
positivst nature of her research.
Grounded Theory studies in this
interpretivist tradition have become increasingly common in the IS
research literature precisely because the method is useful in developing
context-based, process-oriented descriptions and explanations of
phenomenon (Myers, 1997; Urquhart, 2001). However Grounded Theory has
been used in many interpretivist studies in a contingent way. That is
to say many researchers have adopted the procedures and processes of the
method to focus on rigour and traceability in substantive theory
development. For example in the action research arena Baskerville and
Pries-Heje (1999) consider the use of Grounded Theory to increase the
rigour in the theory development part of action research. Similarly
Wastell (2001) arrives at similar conclusions noting that the Grounded
Theory procedures ‘provides a systematic basis for developing and
verifying theory [in action research projects]’. Others, such as
Fitzgerald (1997) and Hughes and Wood-Harper (1999) have adopted the
method by using ‘seed categories’ to initiate the data collection
activities. The question may be legitimately raised as to whether there
is some ‘correct’ way of applying the method and this returns to the
Strauss and Corbin (1994) concerns about method diffusion. The issue
seems to rest in the interpretivist nature of the research since in
positivist IS research projects the methods are rigorously applied (Oliphant
and Blockley, 1991; Galal and McDonnell, 1997).
We would argue however that from
its roots in the social sciences, its philosophy is post-positivist, and
that it relies less on dogma and positivist validity models and more on
the practical application of methods to suit real situations. In a
given methodological context therefore, one would expect that the
intended method could differ from the method in use because of the
dynamics of the situation and this is entirely consistent with the need
to extract richness from social situations. In support of this view,
Hughes and Howcroft (2000) argue against the rigid application of
Grounded Theory in practice. Indeed, Urquhart (2001) highlights that
some seminal advice on Grounded Theory is in fact contradictory, not
least the disagreement between the two original co-authors on its use.
Hughes and Howcroft (2000) further maintain that in any context, the
researcher has to adapt to the contingencies of the particular
situation, that Grounded Theory is a useful vehicle for structuring the
process of conducting data collection and as a rigorous means of data
analysis. This is supported by Urquhart (2001) who argues that,
"Grounded Theory is by definition
a rigorous approach – it demands time, it demands a chain of analysis
and the relating of findings to other theories. As it is an inductive,
emergent method that is located mainly in post positivism, this means
that researchers need to carefully consider their own philosophical
position" (Urquhart, 2001, p. 27).
There is resonance here with the
work of Klein and Myers (1999) who maintain that considering a method as
either positivist or interpretivist is unhelpful since quantitative
methods have been used in interpretive research and qualitative methods
(eg case studies) used in positivist research. Indeed it may be that in
IS Grounded Theory is predominantly used in interpretive studies because
that is where it is most appropriate and that its contingent use is
consistent with the treatment of many other methods in this paradigm.
There may be other less overt
reasons for the spread of Grounded Theory amongst IS researchers.
Hughes and Howcroft (2000) consider underlying assumptions from a
selection of research projects where Grounded Theory has been used and
they identify a different scenario for the evaluation of grounded theory
in IS research. Hughes and Howcroft (2000) consider that the individual
researcher plays a critical role in an interpretive study. They maintain
that using the Grounded Theory procedures may be a way for a researcher
to deal with some of the uncertainty that some researchers feel when
faced with data collection and analysis in interpretive studies. Notably
they point to the fact that for novice researchers (or experienced
researchers new to interpretive studies) Grounded Theory ‘provides a
useful template…and as such serves as a comfort factor in the stressful
and uncertain nature of conducting qualitative research’.
Wherever the motivation or
justification arises it is clear that Grounded Theory is growing in
popularity. It is worth advising some caution however when discussing
the popularity of a method since the danger is that it may achieve a
standing beyond its usefulness. Grounded Theory will certainly not
always be appropriate to every situation and the emphasis on qualitative
methods does not preclude the use of quantitative methods in
interpretive research. In the next section we present by way of
illustration a research project in the interpretive tradition in which
Grounded Theory was used.
Illustrative
Research Project
The research concerned a study of
two public sector councils in the UK and was motivated by a concern for
the use of IS evaluation methods, particularly in the public sector
domain. At the outset it was posited that in spite of the numbers of
methods and techniques available for organisations to undertake IS
evaluation, the prevailing situation is one where economic factors
dominate. These IS evaluation methods contain little or no
organisational or user perspectives as to the usefulness and impact of
the IS. This is an important omission because user perspectives on IS
evaluation are of value. This is particularly an issue in the public
sector where economic factors have little meaning and are therefore,
largely inappropriate. Additionally, the conceptual framework posited
that in practice the prevailing scenario is predominately one of
ritualistic use, under use or non-use of these methods and techniques.
Finally, the conceptual framework argued that in order to understand
these issues from an organisational context, user opinion, via situated
hermeneutic IS evaluation, should be considered.
The methodological approach
chosen for the research was the use of interpretive, qualitative,
in-depth case studies. Following a review of the available research
methods for undertaking case studies, the method chosen for qualitative
data collection and analysis was Grounded Theory. The justification for
this was based on the premise that Grounded Theory provided a set of
procedures for coding and analysing data which suited the interpretive
approach since it would keep the analysis close to the data and provide
for inductive discoveries about the phenomena under study. Furthermore
it was anticipated that as the focus of the domain was the production of
rich contextual organisational accounts (theory) then the development of
categories would assist the researcher in the structuring process. It
will be necessary here to briefly indicate the development of the
Grounded Theory to show how it led to traceable lessons.
The method proceeded by open
coding transcripts from interviewees; some of these codes were simply
words or phrases used by the interviewees. As more data was collected
the open coding continued and categories began to emerge. The
categories were collections of loosely cohesive codes pertaining to one
phenomenon. Categories were then compared and integrated and more
abstract categories were formed leading to a hierarchy of categories.
To illustrate this process we present an extract from the account of one
sub-category – Meetings.
“One of the Chief Information
Officers discussing a corporate information technology client group
stated, ‘It's a talking shop. I talk, they listen and that's it. I've
never really been challenged’. This was borne out by all interviewees,
some of whom were frustrated by the process. ‘I don't feel I have any
influence over the decisions’, commented another interviewee. ‘IS is
only introduced when something is failing’.” (extract from the
sub-category Meetings)
As this sub-category was compared
with others and integrated into the overall hierarchy it became part of
one of the major categories – Decision Making. This category was at the
highest level of abstraction and the researchers were able to elucidate
the empirical theory relating to this concept. An extract from
this part of the Grounded Theory is given below,
“Decision making with regard to
IS issues in the case study organisations are unsophisticated. That is
to say that the case study organisations maintain that the decisions
made are largely obvious and common sense…The case studies show that
managers often use opportunist tactics to achieve goals, including those
concerned with IS. The case studies also highlight that existing power
relations influence discourse. Furthermore, IS professionals sometimes
do not act in the interests of the organisation, but rather have an
allegiance to their own professional development or IS industry
direction.
An unexpected outcome from the
empirical work was an understanding of how people behave towards
decisions that result in changing circumstances. IS investment
decisions often bring a change to working practices and as the case
studies have shown, this can lead to resistance from IS users to fully
utilise IS in the respective service area.” (extract from the category
Decision Making)
The Decision Making category
contributed towards some of the lessons that emerged from the Grounded
Theory notably the following
·
The views, beliefs
and assumptions of stakeholders must be exposed and considered within
the IS evaluation process and not be ephemeral to it.
·
The hierarchical
and political nature of public sector organisations creates a barrier to
change and this must be overcome to ensure interpretive approaches are
successful in practice.
It is beyond the scope of this
paper to show the development of all of the lessons since it is the
lessons learnt from the use of Grounded Theory that are of interest
here. This is dealt with in the next section.
Lessons Learnt
from the use of Grounded Theory
In this section, we consider the
lessons learned with regard to the use of Grounded Theory in the study.
Although Grounded Theory was originally developed as a research paradigm
in post-positivism (Annells, 1996) in this work it was used as a method
of data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the researcher located the
use of Grounded Theory within an interpretivist hermeneutic paradigm
(Thompson, 1990).
On reflection, the use of
Grounded Theory in the case studies indicated that it can assist
conceptually in the understanding of a problem situation, can discover
local empirical theory and can also assist with the articulation of
lessons learned. The major issue that arose in the empirical work with
regard to Grounded Theory was with respect to the 'correct' way of using
Grounded Theory. At the outset it was decided to use seed categories
(Miles and Huberman, 1994) to help guide the research, which Strauss and
Corbin (1998) contend detracts from the method. Furthermore, the
researcher had knowledge of the literature, which is contrary to the
advice offered by Glaser (1992):
"there is a need not to review
any of the literature in the substantive area under study. This dictum
is brought about by the desire not to contaminate...it is vital to be
reading and studying from the outset of the research, but in unrelated
fields" (Glaser, 1992, p. 32).
However, the use of seed
categories to help inform analysis illustrated that the research was
drawing upon previous knowledge and experience to provide a basis for
current work, which is consistent with interpretive case studies
(Walsham, 1993) and certain Grounded Theory approaches (Fitzgerald,
1997).
An important aspect arising from
the use of Grounded Theory in the case study is agency.
Paramount attention must be given to the means by which actors or
organisational members create and recreate organisational structures.
Its use implies an organisational and social context, rather than the
perhaps more familiar technical or economic contexts, for research in
the IS evaluation field. Strauss and Corbin (1998) also note that
theories produced are ‘fluid’ because they ‘embrace the interaction of
multiple actors’ and the procedures particularly the development of
categories through axial coding (relating categories) facilitates the
process of this interaction in a natural way.
In spite of the rationale for the
use of Grounded Theory in interpretive case studies the empirical work
did highlight a dilemma between the interpretive perspective and the
Grounded Theory procedures themselves. This dilemma was that the
procedures of coding, comparing, categorising, saturating all had a
positivist feel to them. Indeed sometimes it felt quite mechanistic.
Conversely, the process of constant comparison felt very interpretive in
nature at times when undertaking the procedure which resonates with the
work of Urquhart (2001). In attempting to resolve dilemmas of this
nature, it is worth looking to the experiences of other researchers,
such as Klein and Myers (1999) who claim that the assumption that
qualitative methods are the only ones suitable for interpretive
research, or conversely, that quantitative methods should only be used
for positivist research, is a fallacy. Certainly, in the case studies a
good deal of the data structuring was attributed to the researcher. As
noted by many authors (Hughes and Howcroft, 2000; Urquhart, 2001) this
is common in interpretive research. It could be reasonably said that the
Grounded Theory method and procedures have their place as a useful
framework, or guidelines or pointers through a structuring process that
is essentially an interpretive process.
The procedures associated with
Grounded Theory were especially time-consuming. The transcribing,
coding and comparing associated with the data analysis was a
particularly lengthy process. We regard this issue as the major
criticism of the Grounded Theory method since although it could be
argued that it introduces the necessary rigour into the interpretive
process it is such an overhead that it is suggested that many
researchers may choose to by-pass this level of attention. In this
piece of work no software packages were used to assist in this process
yet it is still felt that even with such packages a good deal of
attention must be given to these procedures
An additional lesson harshly
learnt was that the researcher's early understanding of Grounded Theory
methods were insufficient and the early coding sessions were not easily
undertaken. Furthermore, the use of methods without a full understanding
of them or of their conjunction was problematic. This concurs with the
Strauss and Corbin (1998) concern about the need for sensitised, trained
and experienced Grounded Theory researchers. We would agree that for the
two case studies, more extensive practical use of the methods and
training in social science research would have been useful. This serves
as a marker both to novice researchers and experienced researchers who
may be coming to this method for the first time. Grounded Theory is
emerging in IS research, but is still relatively new in the IS domain.
Perhaps, therefore, researchers should also have a good prior knowledge
of the reference discipline from which the methods derived.
In the use of Grounded Theory,
the empirical work explicitly sought to discover the underlying
assumptions, the contexts and the experiences of those involved in the
IS evaluation process. In this respect, the method was successful and
these views were elicited via the method in action.
Interestingly, and as an aside to
the main findings from the research, the interview process and
particularly the procedures associated with the Grounded Theory method
itself stimulated IS practitioners and key stakeholders to question
their own underlying assumptions and provoked a significant amount of
internal self-questioning and review. The research process became a
process of self-evaluation of each individual's decision making process.
Another interesting point is that although Glaser and Strauss (1967) may
prefer to rationalise Grounded Theory as an external process, Hughes and
Howcroft (2000) argue that in practice the method should also be viewed
as an internal process for the researcher, that enables and facilitates
creativity and innovation. This latter view was certainly the experience
during the shift from novice to more informed researcher that occurred
during the study. Another interesting finding was that the Grounded
Theory method could provide a set of procedures for both the
articulation and the dissemination of a grounded view from the
stakeholders on IS evaluation. This enabled the situated processes to be
documented and provided an organisational record from which all
stakeholders could learn.
Conclusions
Based on the above reflections on
the research experience, the following guidance for the use of Grounded
Theory in IS research is tentatively proffered:
·
In the
methodological context, the intended Grounded Theory method may differ
from the method used because of the dynamics and context in the domain.
·
Grounded Theory is
consistent with interpretive case based field studies dealing with
social and organisational contexts.
·
The researcher's
personal constructs and skills help structure data and it is the
researcher's hermeneutic perspective that maintains the interpretive
style rather than the Grounded Theory method.
·
Grounded Theory can
be very time consuming, particularly in the transcribing, coding and
comparing associated with the data analysis.
·
To fully understand
Grounded Theory, training in Grounded Theory followed by practical use
of the methods in social science research is suggested.
·
In organisational
settings, social science methods such as Grounded Theory can be useful
in providing deep insights and understanding of social life.
·
Grounded Theory
provides a useful template for researchers and can serve as a comfort
factor for the stressful and uncertain nature of conducting qualitative
research.
·
Grounded Theory can
generate local empirical theory which although not always generalisable
will be generally useful.
·
Grounded Theory can
help provide confidence in original and rich research findings and
theory because of its close tie to the data and the rigour in the
method.
·
Grounded Theory can
explicitly seek to discover the underlying assumptions, the contexts and
the experiences of those involved in the IS phenomenon under study.
·
The interview
process and particularly the procedures associated with Grounded Theory
can stimulate interviewees to question their own underlying assumptions
and can provoke internal self-questioning and review.
·
Grounded Theory is
rationalised as an external process, but in practice the method can be
an internal process, that enables and facilitates creativity and
innovation for the researcher.
This research study has
illustrated that Grounded Theory, a method more commonly associated with
the social science perspective, can assist with rich, context based
interpretive IS research. The empirical work also illustrates that it
is possible to successfully use Grounded Theory in qualitative IS
evaluation studies where the social aspect is paramount. Finally on
reflection, there is a problem to overcome, in that although social
science methods such as Grounded Theory may be appropriate, there can be
a difficulty in effectively introducing such methods into a technically
dominant field such as information systems. The methodology's
acceptability and practicability therefore needs to be more strongly
established. This can be achieved by those using the method bringing
their perspectives and reflections into the public research arena.
References
- Adams,
A. and Sasse, M. A. (1999) Users Are Not The Enemy. Communications
of the ACM, Dec 1999.
- Annells,
M. (1996) Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigm
of Inquiry and Postmodernisation. Qualitative Health Research,
vol. 6, no. 3, Sage, CA.
-
Baskerville, R. L. and Pries-Heje, J. (1999) Grounded Action Research:
A Method for Understanding IT in Practice. Accounting, Management
and Information Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-23.
-
Calloway, L. J. and Ariav, G. (1991) Developing and Using a
Qualitative Methodology to Study Relationships among Designers and
Tools. In Nissen, H.-E., Klein, H.K. and Hirschheim, R. (eds.),
Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent
Traditions. North Holland. Amsterdam. pp. 175-193.
- Dey, I.
(1999) Grounding Grounded Theory. Academic Press, CA.
-
Fitzgerald, B. (1997) The Use of Systems Development Methodologies in
Practice: A Field Study. Information Systems Journal, vol. 7,
no 4, pp. 121-132.
- Galal,
G. and McDonnell, J. T. (1997) Knowledge-Based Systems in Context: A
Methodological Approach to Qualitative Issues. AI and Society,
vol. 11, pp. 104-121.
- Glaser,
B. G. (1992) Basis of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs
Forcing. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
- Glaser,
B. G. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, New York.
- Hughes,
J. and Howcroft, D. A. (2000) Grounded Theory: Never Knowingly
Understood. Information Systems Review, vol 4, no. 1, pp.
181-197.
- Hughes,
J. and Wood-Harper, A. T. (1999) Systems Development as a Research
Act. Journal of Information Technology, vol 14, no. 1, pp.
83-94.
- Klein,
H. K. and Myers, M. D. (1999) A Set of Principles For Conducting and
Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp.
67-94.
- Miles,
M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook. (2nd Edition), Sage, CA.
- Myers,
M. D. (1997) Qualitative Research in Information Systems,
Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.
221-242.
- Oliphant,
J. and Blockley, D. I. (1991) Knowledge-Based System: Advisor on the
Earth Retaining Structures. Computers and Structures, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp. 173-183.
-
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993) CASE Tools as Organisational Change:
Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
309-340.
- Strauss,
A. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded Theory Methodology: An overview.
In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Sage. London. pp. 273-285.
- Strauss,
A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London.
-
Thompson, J. (1990), Hermeneutic Enquiry, In Moody, E. (Ed.),
Advancing Nursing Science Through Research, Sage: London, pp.
223-280.
- Toraskar,
K. V. (1991) How Managerial Users Evaluate Their Decision-Support: A
Grounded Theory Approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
vol. 7, pp. 195-225.
- Trauth,
E. M. (2000) The Culture of an Information Economy: Influences and
Impacts in the Republic of Ireland. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, Netherlands.
- Trauth,
E. M. (Ed) (2001) Qualitative Research in Information Systems:
Issues and Trends. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
- Urquhart,
C. (2001) An Encounter with Grounded Theory: Tackling the Practical
and Philosophical Issues. In Trauth, E. (Ed.) Qualitative Research
in Information Systems: Issues and Trends. Idea Group Publishing,
London.
- Walsham,
G. (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations.
Wiley, Chichester.
- Wastell,
D. (2001) Barriers to Effective Knowledge Management: Action Research
Meets Grounded Theory. Journal of Systems and Information
Technology, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 21-35
|
