The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 44

IS research. Since then, many IS researchers have successfully used and published
grounded theory studies (e.g. Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 1999; Lehmann, 2001b;
Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000; Trauth and Jessup, 2000; Urquhart, 1997; Urquhart,
1998; Urquhart, 1999; Urquhart, 2001).
While grounded theory studies still constitute a minority group in IS research (Lehmann,
2001b), the value of grounded theory has now become acknowledged within the IS field.
This recognition reflects the tremendous progress of interpretive research from its insig-
nificance in the 1980s (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991) to its current mainstream status
in the IS community (Klein and Myers, 2001; Markus, 1997). However, the increased
interest and adoption of the grounded theory method brings to the surface the issue of
shortage of guidance on how to apply the method in IS studies. This paper contributes
by providing an introduction to the method that focuses on (a) describing the use of the
grounded theory method with case study data, (b) presenting a research model (c) dis-
cussing the critical characteristics of the grounded theory method, (d) discussing why
grounded theory is appropriate for studies seeking both rigour and relevance, and (e)
highlighting some risks and demands intrinsic to the method. Figure 5.1 illustrates the
structure of the paper.
Figure 5.1. Thematic structure.
Background
The grounded theory method grew in importance and recognition over the years from
the seminal work of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967). These two sociologists
come from different backgrounds and their collaborative work melds fundamental tra-
ditions in sociology (Glaser, 1978; Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 1998; Glaser and Strauss, 1967;
Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
On the one hand, Herbert Blumer, Evert Hughes and Robert Park trained Anselm Strauss
in symbolic interaction at the University of Chicago's school of qualitative research,
where Strauss was influenced by the pragmatist philosophical tradition (Charmaz, 2001;
Glaser, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). On the other hand, Barney Glaser was trained
in quantitative methodology and qualitative mathematics (a method in which mathemat-
ical expressions, such as those of statistical formulas, can be stated qualitatively) at
Columbia University by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, an innovator of quantitative methods (Glaser,
1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Glaser was also trained in theory construction by