The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 57

familiar with computers do creative work with them and around them. 9 ATLAS.ti did
not impose a significant learning curve; the software was found to be intuitive, the tu-
torials took a day to do - and after that I did not need to refer to the software manuals.
Working with ATLAS.ti was not different from working on paper, yet retrieving and
connecting concepts was extremely easy and efficient.
Finally, while ATLAS.ti has some automated coding facilities (i.e. coding all occurrences
of a word or phrase), coding was done entirely manually, reading the text line by line
while endeavouring to explain the incidents. Automatic coding is a disadvantage for
the grounded theorist as it obscures the discovery of what is going on in the text; in
this regard, Glaser's reservations are fully justified.
Demands and risks of grounded theory
Every methodology poses particular demands and grounded theory is not an exception.
I strongly concur with the advice provided by Glaser (1978; 1998; 2001), based on his
own experience and discussions with other grounded theorists, that the grounded the-
orist must:
1. tolerate confusion - there is no need to know a priori and no need to force the data;
2. tolerate regression - researchers might get briefly 'lost' before finding their way;
3. trust emerging data without worrying about justification - the data will provide
the justification if the researcher adheres to the rigour of the method;
4. have someone to talk to - grounded theory demands moments of isolation to get
deep in data analysis as well as moments of consultation and discussion;
5. be open to emerging evidence that may change the way the researcher thought
about the subject matter, and be willing to act on the new evidence;
6. be able to conceptualise to derive theory from the data. This is perhaps the most
important risk, as some people may experience difficulty conceptualising what is
going on in the field; and
7. be creative in devising new ways of obtaining and handling data, combining the
approaches of others, or using a tested approach in a different way.
Additionally, in adopting grounded theory methodology, the IS researcher has to confront
two further risks. First, due to the minority status of grounded theory in IS research, it
is likely that IS researchers, especially PhD candidates, will experience what Stern (1994),
described as Minus-mentoring - that is, learning from topics, employing grounded theory
for the first time without the guidance of a supervisor with practical knowledge of the
methodology. Minus-mentoring could result in methodologically unsound studies (Glaser,
1998; Stern, 1994). This has happened, for example, when studies claiming to be based
on grounded theory have breached key tenets of the method (one of the main risks of
using grounded theory within a second, overarching, methodology). However, 'Minus-
mentees' can reduce this risk by (a) networking with IS researchers conversant with the
methodology; (b) reading the 'Grounded Theory Bibliography' (Urquhart, 2001); and
(c) participating in relevant discussion groups (e.g. IFIP WG8.2, the Grounded Theory
Institute). 10
Second, grounded theory seems to be easier to use when the researcher is sensitive,
through having professional experience or knowledge, to the field under study (Glaser,

9
It has to be acknowledged that my familiarity with computers as work tools did make a difference in the usability of qualit-
ative data analysis software. I would also suggest that the familiarity people in the IS area have with technology cannot be
assumed in other areas of research, such as social sciences, where the bulk of grounded theory studies are conducted.
10

Minus-mentoring was resolved in my case by the addition of an external supervisor with excellent practical experience on
grounded theory (as well as following the strategies recommended here).