The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 49

To help explain the activities that developed the substantive theory in my study, I ex-
panded Lehmann's (2001a) model, adding components from Eisenhardt's (1989) and
from the Glaserian literature. By doing so, it is possible to present a picture (Figure 5.3)
that includes the important role the literature played in my research and to acknowledge
the key role of theoretical memos.
Figure 5.3. Expanded Lehmann's research model.
Entering the field is the first research action to be conducted in the context where the
phenomenon is found. To enter the field I considered three important aspects:
1. First, following the grounded theory tradition, the study assumed that 'the problem'
was to be discovered from accounts from people in the substantive area of enquiry.
This contrasts with the need of other methods for precise research questions
emerging from the literature review. The initial research question was as broad as
possible and did not include a priori constructs or guiding theories. As I had a pre-
research assumption regarding leadership as a main theme, this assumption was
handled according to the method; that is, the researcher produced a 'slice of data'
to be compared with others. However, this assumption was soon abandoned as a
pattern different from the expected emerged.
2. Second, I had to address practical issues like crafting ethical protocols and obtaining
approval, selecting the software and hardware required for interviewing and pro-
cessing the data, producing transcription protocols, and training to administer
leadership surveys. 5
3. Third, entering the field included preparation work such as selecting an appropriate
site, negotiating and obtaining access to the case, contacting participants and
gaining their consent.
After entering the field, access was unrestricted and I became involved in theoretical
sampling . Theoretical sampling was a data collection process that continued until the
5
The surveys, MLQ and MLQTeam, were designed to measure the leadership style of the project manager and the project
team. The purpose of the survey was twofold: (a) to measure a priori the leadership style of the team and of the project manager,
based on a suspicion that leadership was a key issue; and (b) to have data from the survey to later compare with evidence
from interviews if leadership emerged as a main concern (it did not). The surveys had the secondary goals of introducing the
team to the research and to establish rapport. In this regard the exercise was successful.