The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 46

by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and the highly critical public response from Glaser (1992)
mark the emergence of an important schism in grounded theory, resulting in the
'Straussian' and 'Glaserian' models (Stern, 1994).
However, this paper does not aim to arbitrate on what Melia (1996) described as a war
of words between friends. Indeed, I perceive both approaches as far more valuable
contributions to qualitative researchers than the long epistemological discussions about
them. Furthermore, many grounded theory IS researchers have already left this discussion
behind and are concentrating on how the method can be improved, taught, and made
more relevant to both academe and industry (among others, these include Cathy Urquhart,
Hans Lehmann, David Douglas, Stefan Cronholm and Goran Goldkul).
Nonetheless, while accepting the validity of the two approaches, the discrepancies
between them are substantial; especially in the use of Strauss and Corbin's 'axial coding'
(Glaser, 1992; Kendall, 1999) and the form and nature of the theoretical outcome
(Straussian full-description versus Glaserian abstract-conceptualisation). Consequently,
researchers must opt for the approach more appropriate for their particular studies. My
study followed the Glaserian approach because:
1. I was more interested in the conceptualisation offered by Glaser than on the full
description of Strauss and Corbin. The Glaserian approach has a strong focus on
abstract conceptualisations that are not concerned with people and time but tied
to the substantive area of inquiry, which made it more useful to my study's partic-
ular goal; relevance to industry. In other words, a method focusing on conceptual-
isation offered a better probability of contributing to the experts in the substantive
field; thus reducing the risk of telling the experts what they already knew.
2. The Straussian approach appears to be more useful for studies of individuals than
studies involving organisational, political, and technical issues (Lehmann, 2001a,
p. 9).
3. The preliminary literature review made me aware of practical problems reported
by researchers in using the Straussian coding paradigm (e.g. Cronholm, 2002;
Kendall, 1999; Sarker et al., 2000; Sarker et al., 2001; Urquhart, 2001).
4. The Glaserian approach is far less prescriptive and offers the flexibility of a number
of potential coding paradigms, not just one.
In adopting a Glaserian approach I also selected the main methodological texts guiding
the investigation. This was important to reduce both controversies and confusion (mine
and my audience's). The main texts were:
1. 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research' (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967),
2. 'Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory' (Glaser,
1978), and
3. 'Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions' (Glaser, 1998).
'The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualisation Contrasted with Description' (Glaser,
2001) can also be consulted for a very extensive discussion contrasting the conceptual-
isation of grounded theory with the need for rich description of other qualitative data
analysis methods.
Grounded theory and case study
While grounded theory is mainly used for qualitative research (Glaser, 2001), it is a
general method of analysis that accepts qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid data collec-