|
For information on the European Conference on IT Evaluation, click here
Downloadable documents on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader (free download here)
| |
An
Exploration of the Use of Grounded Theory as a Research
Approach in the Field of IS Evaluation.
Steve Jones,
Information Systems Research
Centre, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Jim Hughes,
School of Accounting and Information
Systems, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
steve.jones@conwy.gov.uk ;
j.hughes@salford.ac.uk
|
 |
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
Many researchers may feel
confident about the philosophical underpinnings of their research strategy.
However in the field of IS evaluation there are a growing number of studies that
are concerned with the practice of IS evaluation where the studies must
necessarily draw upon the contexts, experiences and narratives of
practitioners. This calls for research approaches that are qualitative and may
also be interpretive. These may include case studies or action research
projects. Given this situation a researcher’s confidence may be eroded when
faced with the prospect of analysing the raw materials emanating from studies of
this kind since their own experience and background may not provide the
necessary tools or understanding to produce rigorous and reliable outcomes. In
this paper we consider the use of Grounded Theory (GT) as a method to provide
guidelines to help the researcher through this problem. Grounded Theory is a
qualitative research method from the social sciences that has also been usefully
applied in the field of information systems. It is a method that provides
practical guidelines and procedures for the collection and analysis of
qualitative data. In this paper we outline the historical development of
Grounded Theory, from its roots in sociological studies, to its current use in
IS research. An analysis is presented to help understand the underlying
assumptions of the researchers that utilise Grounded Theory in IS research.
From the analysis it becomes evident that there are inconsistencies in both the
understanding and the application of the method. We consider those
inconsistencies and draw upon published case study material from the IS
evaluation field to illustrate the pitfalls and the opportunities that such an
approach could have in future IS evaluation studies. |
|
|
