Critical analysis of grounded theory strategy in organisational and management research

Abstract

PurposeAlthough grounded theory (GT) was introduced in 1967, GT remains widely misunderstood as scholars incorporate a limited spectrum of the GT techniques and fail to integrate GT's full potential into academic research. The purpose of this article is, therefore, to discuss divergences between four GT strategies and by doing so to provide criteria for making an informed choice between one GT approach or another.Design/methodology/approachThe study offers a comparative analysis of four GT approaches by relying on a recently completed empirical work focused on the practice and perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in non-Western context conducted by the author.FindingsAs a result, the study outlines the main points of divergence between the four GT strategies and discusses how their differences impact the research outcomes, theoretical products and application of the proposed theories in organisational and management research.Research limitations/implicationsAs a result of the comparative analysis, the study will help researchers make an informed choice when selecting one GT approach or another.Originality/valueThe study demonstrates the potential of GT in organisational and management research by utilising a practical example of GT's implementation from a recently completed empirical study.

From hierarchical to matrix structure: tensions in negotiating shared leadership configurations

“…An inductive approach to data analysis informed by grounded theory (Franken and Plimmer, 2019) was therefore used. Of the various approaches to grounded theory (Koleva, 2023), this study is closer to Charmaz's (2006) approach of "social reality [as] multiple, processual and constructed." (p. 264).…”

“…An inductive approach to data analysis informed by grounded theory (Franken and Plimmer, 2019) was therefore used. Of the various approaches to grounded theory (Koleva, 2023), this study is closer to Charmaz’s (2006) approach of “social reality [as] multiple, processual and constructed.” (p. 264). Hence, the data analysis process was bracketed by two literature reviews, and characterized by consistent memoing to guide iterative linking between data and theory (Koleva, 2023).…”

“…(p. 264). Hence, the data analysis process was bracketed by two literature reviews, and characterized by consistent memoing to guide iterative linking between data and theory (Koleva, 2023).…”

“…Following Charmaz’s (2006) approach, I used the literature as a basis to identify a research gap, construct a research question, design the study, select sensitizing concepts to guide my data analysis and anchor my discussion of the contributions. However, I let themes and contributions emerge from the data, grounding these contributions in the constructed reality of participants (Koleva, 2023). Throughout the research process and as required with this inductive approach, I avoided letting the theory or my own positioning as researcher shape results (Boswell and Badchuk, 2023).…”

The influence of Islam in shaping organisational socially responsible behaviour

“…Examining an abstract concept such as religion that holds divergent meanings for different actors (Koleva, 2021) can be difficult; it is, therefore, essential to examine the symbolic interactions of the participants living the phenomenon (Corley, 2015; Walker et al, 2012) and the emerging social constructs associated with it (Koleva, 2023; Koleva & Ocler, 2018), especially when it comes to their reflections on organisational practices (van Buren III et al, 2020). Hence, the study employed an exploratory research design (De Vaus, 2001) presented in Figure 1, as well as a Grounded Theory (GT) approach and abductive reasoning (Peirce, 1935) in order to conduct an in‐depth investigation of the symbolic interactions of the actors with Islam from the viewpoint of key stakeholders involved in the phenomenon implementation at a micro‐level, and the respective reflections that these symbolic interactions could have in terms of the construction of CSR as an organisational/meso‐level phenomenon (Charmaz, 2005; Corley, 2015; Peattie & Samuel, 2018; Walker et al, 2012).…”