Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
tion from surveys, experiments, and case studies (Glaser, 1978). However, when combin-
ing methods like case study and grounded theory, utmost care must be exercised to
ensure that the canons of case study research do not distort true emergence for theory
generation (Glaser, 1998 pp. 40-2). For example, Yin (1994, p. 28) states 'theory develop-
ment prior to the collection of any case study data is an essential step in doing case
studies.' This statement, perfectly valid for some case study research, contravenes a key
principle of grounded theory. Therefore, when combining case study and grounded
theory, the researcher must clearly specify which methodology is driving the investiga-
tion.
I used grounded theory as the overarching methodology to study data from an explor-
atory case study and to drive data acquisition activities within and outside the case
study. Yet, the reason for using the grounded theory approach was consistent with the
three main reasons suggested by Benbasat et al. (1987) for using a case study strategy
in IS research, namely:
1. The research can study IS in a natural setting, learn the state of the art, and generate
theories from practice.
2. The researcher can answer the questions that lead to an understanding of the nature
and complexity of the processes taking place.
3. It is an appropriate way to research a previously little studied area.
Additionally, as I had professional experience in the substantive area of my study,
grounded theory was an appropriate approach because it provided a method to deal
with my experience, controlling the risk of introducing bias into the study. This control
is achieved by the constant comparative method, which forces researchers to state their
assumptions and their own knowledge as data (in the form of memos or self-interviews)
and to compare these data with other data from the study. The constant comparison of
incidents then validates, modifies, or rejects the expert researchers' observations. Thus,
for researchers with professional experience in the substantive field of their research,
constant comparison is a valuable feature of the grounded theory method. To be sure,
constant comparison
reduces
, but cannot completely eliminate, the risk of bias-induced
distortions.
For these reasons, seeking to generate theory grounded in case study data was a partic-
ularly appropriate strategy for my research. Furthermore, this approach has been tested
and detailed by Eisenhardt (1989) and it is one of the preferred ways of doing grounded
theory in IS research (Lehmann, 2001b; Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000; Orlikowski,
1993; Urquhart, 2001). According to Eisenhardt (1989), using case data to build grounded
theory has three major strengths:
1.
Theory building from case studies is likely to produce novel theory; this is so be-
cause 'creative insight often arises from juxtaposition of contradictory or paradox-
ical evidence' (p. 546). The process of reconciling these accounts using the constant
comparative method forces the analyst to a new gestalt, unfreezing thinking and
producing 'theory with less researcher bias than theory built from incremental
studies or armchair, axiomatic deduction' (p. 546).
2.
The emergent theory 'is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily
measured and hypotheses that can be proven false' (p. 547). Due to the close con-
nection between theory and data it is likely that the theory can be further tested
and expanded by subsequent studies.
3.
The 'resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid' (p. 547). This is so because
a level of validation is performed implicitly by constant comparison, questioning
Search WWH ::
Custom Search