The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design - Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising - page 58

1978; Glaser, 1998; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This sensitivity facilitates understanding
or 'verstehen' (Weber, 1968). My substantial experience as a senior practitioner in the
field of IS project management was a distinct advantage in eliciting information from
participants in the same field. This experience facilitated the understanding of some of
the more subtle issues in the study.
There is also the risk of finding something that is not new. What if this has been done
before? This appears to be more a natural fear than a probable risk. To be sure, it is
possible to study some emerging organisational phenomena just to come up with a theory
that already exists in the literature. Yet this is unlikely. If the study is conducted as the
method indicates, diligent researchers should have included the relevant literature
(convergent and divergent) and detected variations and particularities. As Thomas Kuhn
(1962, p. 30) said: 'It is a truism that anything is similar to, and also different from,
everything else'. A good grounded theory study should be able to point out similarities
and differences, and to produce patterns that are particular to the substantive field of
the research. Yet, as with any methodology, and indeed any human activity, there are
no certainties.
Lastly, a grounded theory emerges through intensive intellectual action. Researchers
need to interact with their data and while this interaction is often highly rewarding and
satisfying, it is also extremely intensive, time- consuming and all absorbing, and the
researcher must be persistent and resilient (as also attested by Urquhart, 2001).
Conclusion
The literature describes several virtues of the grounded theory method. Grounded theory
allows researchers to deal effectively with the important issues of bias and preconceptions,
and provides a systematic approach that takes into consideration extant theory but is
not driven by it (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Goleman, 1998; Sarker et al., 2001; Urquhart,
1997; Urquhart, 2001). Triangulation is embedded in the methodology (Glaser, 1978;
Glaser, 1998; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). GTM values professional experience (Glaser,
1998; Urquhart, 2001). GTM can efficiently study emerging phenomena (Lehmann,
2001a; Urquhart, 2001; Van de Ven and Poole, 1989). GTM helps IT practitioners to
better understand their own environment (Glaser, 1998; Martin and Turner, 1986).
Furthermore, grounded theory can produce clear, logical and parsimonious theory that
fulfils the canons of good science and simultaneously can be used in IS practice to explain
and predict the phenomena in its environment. In other words, researchers can produce
theory-building studies 'which are useful, relevant and up-to-date' (Partington, 2000).
To be relevant to practitioners' concerns, the theory needs to provide meaningful accounts
for them. With the grounded theory methodology, researchers can significantly contrib-
ute by providing the knowledgeable person with theory grounded in their field of work
(Glaser, 1978) that has been enriched by conceptualisation and extant literature from
multiple sources (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser, 1998). By doing this, researchers can avoid
stating the obvious to the expert and instead provide categories based on many indicators
and showing ideas based on patterns. These conceptual ideas allow practitioners to
transcend the limits of their own experience, adapting and applying the substantive
theory to other situations.
Relevance for the grounded theorist means bringing tangible benefits to the experts. As
Glaser said, when the field experts can understand and use a theory by themselves '…
then our theories have earned their way. Much of the popularity of grounded theory
to sociologists and layman alike, is that it deals with what is actually going on, not what
ought to go on' (Glaser, 1978, p. 14).