Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to assess and explain the role of grounded theory (GT) in interpretive management accounting research (IMAR) and seeks to answer the question: can interpretive researchers use GT? And if so, how?Design/methodology/approachThis is a theoretical paper that attempts to investigate how researchers can use GT in relation to their ontological stance, methodological position and research methods.FindingsThe paper suggests that GT offers a balance between the expediency of the research findings, thereby allowing researchers freedom to interpret management accounting practices, and the development of rigorous theory from IMAR.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper provides an analysis of GT from an interpretive perspective and, clearly, there are other research perspectives which could have been discussed.Practical implicationsGT can be a powerful tool that researchers could use to collect and analyse empirical data. However, researchers need to align GT with the broader paradigm they adopt when researching social phenomena. The paper provides some general guidelines for IMARs who want to use GT in their research.Originality/valueThis paper shows that GT can offer interpretive researchers a way of balancing the need to develop theory, which is grounded in everyday practices, and the recognition that the research process is inherently subjective. However, it is argued that in interpretive research GT cannot provide a simple “recipe book” which, if followed rigorously, will result in a high‐quality research (i.e. valid, reliable and unbiased). Nevertheless, the guidelines provide a way for IMARs, who use GT to improve the quality of their research findings.

An independent audit oversight system in a non-developed market: the case of Egypt

“…The AOB's framework is the core category of this study that is grouped into the following sub-categories: AOB's motivations, objectives, and working approach. The theory developed was validated by the literature according to Strauss and Corbin approach (Elharidy et al, 2008). Further, we validate our findings by comparing what different participants -who are working at different positions and in different firmssaid in different and separate interviews in order to increase the reliability of the collected data.…”

The use of grounded theory in studies of nurses and midwives’ coping processes: a systematic literature search

“…Grounded theory was described as a methodology, a method, or as both a methodology and a method. The literature documents a common confusion of a definition amongst grounded theorists, with even the co-founders sending mixed messages (Elharidy, Nicholson, & Scapens, 2008;Tan, 2010). Glaser and Houlton (2004, p. A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t 13 grounded theory as "a conceptual theory generating methodology" using constant comparative methods, while Strauss and his co-author Corbin, described grounded theory as both a qualitative methodology and a research method utilizing systematic procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2015;Strauss & Corbin, 1990).…”

Interparadigmatic dialogue in management accounting

“…However, the subjective/objective divide has been criticised by many authors (e.g. Ahrens, 2008;Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al, 2008;Elharidy et al, 2008;Davila, Oyon, 2008;Lukka, Modell, 2010). For example, in discussing the interpretive management accounting research methodology Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al (2008) argue that strict distinctions between objective and subjective approaches to This copy is for personal us research make no sense.…”

“…Interpretive management accounting research "straddles paradigms" -it combines subjectivist and objectivist features. Interpretive research starts from the subjective meanings which examined actors ascribe to their everyday actions, but it is not an exclusively subjectivist approach (Elharidy et al, 2008). Ahrens (2008, p. 296) states that "the label 'interpretive' gives a broad indication that social reality is emergent and subjectively created yet (successively) objectified in social intercourse".…”

“…Hansen (in: Ahrens et al, 2008) portrays interpretive accounting research as being social and institutional rather than technical, sensitive rather than indifferent, modest rather than arrogant and practice rather than theory based. According to Elharidy et al (2008) This copy is for personal us tive management accounting research: the naturalistic view (researchers study practice as it exists, not as it should be); the hermeneutic approach (interpretation and understanding are established from various perspectives, e.g. individual, social, cultural); eclecticism or polycentrism (reflective use of multiple theories, research methods and disciplines); explanation (a balance between subjectivity and theoretical relevance or between emic and etic perspectives); and diversity (focus on "different" contexts, cultures, and backgrounds).…”