The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 54

Another critical a priori sampling decision was to control the variation by organisational
delimitation while allowing for within-case diversity of access to multiple data sources.
The sample was under the unifying influence of the cultural and organisational environ-
ment, which allowed controlling environmental variation while clarifying the domain
of the research, as suggested by Pettigrew (1988).
One of the dangers in any type of research is to sample too superficially. To counteract
this risk, the foundation case was selected because it provided the 'meatiest, most study-
relevant sources' (a strategy recommended by Miles and Huberman [1994]). There were
also opportunistic reasons to select the case. The selected project provided the best ac-
cessibility, as most people in the core project team were (usually) based in the same city
in which I was located. This practical consideration was later proven critical as in situ
observations gave me a better appreciation of what was going on and of what was im-
portant to the actors. 8
As it happened, the single case was sufficient to provide enough data for the exploratory
study, as Yin (1994) would perhaps have suggested. However, this was because the initial
project resulted in a much richer source of data than first expected, with the project
taking six times longer than expected to complete and presenting a substantial number
of incidents for comparison and theory construction. While the argument presented by
Yin (1994) for revelatory single case studies was ad post valid for my research, the
validity of the single case study was based on the richness of the case. This richness al-
lowed reaching conceptual saturation and thus permitted the closure of the grounded
theory study, something I did not know a priori .

The core category: role and selection criteria
The objective of the research is to generate theory 'that accounts for the patterns of be-
haviour which is relevant and problematic for those involved' (Glaser, 1978, p. 93). To
achieve this goal the analyst must discover the core category and delimit the investigation
around it. The core category is the pivotal point for the theory; most other categories
relate to it, and it accounts for most of the variation in pattern and behaviour. The core
category 'has the prime function of integrating the theory and rendering the theory
dense and saturated as the relationships increase' (Glaser, 1978, p. 93).
In my study, the core pattern was 'resolving conflicts', a basic process that engaged
actors (people and organisations) in a series (pattern) of activities aimed at resolving in-
congruence and misunderstandings. Resolving conflicts is how managers of meta-teams
(and the component teams) achieve project delivery. The core category in the resolving
conflict pattern was 'trust,' which had a number of key interrelated categories that ex-
plained the core pattern.

Induction and deduction
According to Glaser (1998), the notion of induction versus deduction is often an over-
simplification of complex patterns of thought present in grounded theory development.
While grounded theory is classified as an inductive method (e.g. Glaser, 1978; Glaser
and Strauss, 1967; Martin and Turner, 1986; Strauss and Corbin, 1998), theoretical
sampling is a deductive activity grounded in inducted categories or hypotheses. This
acts as a virtuous circle where '[d]eductions for theoretical sampling fosters better sources
of data, therefore better grounded inductions' (Glaser, 1998, p. 43). The difference

8

In situ observations were important. One can listen to historical accounts of disagreements; however, listening to the somewhat
heated discussion between two parties with conflicting interests in real-time, as I did, gives the researcher yet another per-
spective to compare.