The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 48

the data from the start of the process. 'This closeness can lead to an intimate sense
of things' that 'often produces theory which closely mirrors reality' (p. 547). 4

Recent evidence shows that the combination of case studies and grounded theory has
been rewarding for IS researchers. For example, Lehmann (2001a, p. 87) claims that:
Applying Grounded Theory to Case Study was very successful. It produced
a prolific amount and yielded a great richness of information. … The case
settings, furthermore, contained more varied data than could be expected from
individual, purely homocentric studies. Efficiency and abundance combined
to make this method an exceedingly fruitful one.
According to Dr Anne Persson (Department of Computer Science, University of Skövde,
Sweden), 'I have to say that the combination of case studies and [Grounded Theory] has
been very rewarding. I seriously doubt that I would have achieved my goal without
that combination' (personal correspondence, 13 Sept. 2001, 08:27:38). My experience
with the method further attests to these expressions of satisfaction.
Walking the research model
I acknowledge upfront the difficulty in explaining simply and correctly a method that
'happens sequentially, subsequently, simultaneously, serendipitously and scheduled'
(Glaser, 1998, p. 1). The spiral, and at times simultaneous, nature of grounded theory is
a powerful and satisfying feature of the research method; it allows flexibility and con-
tinuous sharpening of emerging constructs via deep familiarisation with data, validation,
and progressive expansion of knowledge and skills. This nature is represented in
Lehmann's (2001) research model.
Lehmann (2001a) describes the grounded theory process as a spiral that starts by collect-
ing 'slices of data' in a substantive area of enquiry, which are then codified and categor-
ised in a continuous process that moves toward saturation and results in the theoretical
densification of concepts represented by a substantive theory. Figure 5.2 represents this
iterative process.
Figure 5.2. Grounded theory's building process (Lehmann 2001a).

Although this model provides a good overview of the process of grounded theory, it
fails to include the significant role of extant literature external to the substantive area
in the formulation of the substantive theory, and the role of memos.

4

These points are also in harmony with Yin's (1994) approach to case study.