Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Profiling grounded theory approaches in information systems research

  • Research Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Studies claiming to use the Grounded theory methodology (GTM) have been quite prevalent in information systems (IS) literature. A cursory review of this literature reveals conflict in the understanding of GTM, with a variety of grounded theory approaches apparent. The purpose of this investigation was to establish what alternative grounded theory approaches have been employed in IS, and to what extent each has been used. In order to accomplish this goal, a comprehensive set of IS articles that claimed to have followed a grounded theory approach were reviewed. The articles chosen were those published in the widely acknowledged top eight IS-centric journals, since these journals most closely represent exemplar IS research. Articles for the period 1985-2008 were examined. The analysis revealed four main grounded theory approaches in use, namely (1) the classic grounded theory approach, (2) the evolved grounded theory approach, (3) the use of the grounded theory approach as part of a mixed methodology, and (4) the application of grounded theory techniques, typically for data analysis purposes. The latter has been the most common approach in IS research. The classic approach was the least often employed, with many studies opting for an evolved or mixed method approach. These and other findings are discussed and implications drawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banville C and Landry M (1989) Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM 32 (1), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville R and Pries-Heje J (1999) Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 9, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat I and Zmud R (2003) The identity crisis within the IS discipline. Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS Quarterly 27 (2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau M and Robey D (2005) Enacting integrated information technology: a human agency perspective. Organization Science 16 (1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant A (2002) Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4 (1), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler T and O’reilly P (2010) Recovering the ontological foundations of the grounded theory method. ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 7 [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2010_submissions/75.

  • Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2008) Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In Handbook of Constructionist Research (HOSLTON JA and GUBRIUM JF,) Eds, Guilford Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2002) Thirty years in the systems movement: disappointments I have known, and a way forward. Systemist 24 (2), 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen W and Hirschheim R (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal 14 (3), 197–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deluca D, Gallivan M and Kock N (2008) Furthering information systems action research: a post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9 (2), 48–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duchscher JE and Morgan B (2004) Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing 48 (6), 605–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald B and Howcroft D (1998) Towards the dissolution of the IS debate. From polarisation to polarity. Journal of Information Technology 13 (4), 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press, Mill Valley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (2002) Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (2008) Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory. Sociology Press, Mill Valley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Holton J (2004) Remodelling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 5 (2), Article 4 [WWW document] http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqstexte/2-04/2-04glaser-e.htm.

  • Glaser BG and Strauss A (1967) Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press, Mill Valley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding C (1998) Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research 1 (1), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly 30 (3), 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff S and Munro M (1985) Information technology assessment and adoption: a field study. MIS Quarterly 9 (4), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes J and Jones S (2003) Reflections on the use of grounded theory in interpretive information systems research. ECIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 62 [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2003/62.

  • Kelle U (2005) Emergence vs forcing of empirical data? A crucial theory of grounded theory reconsidered. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (2), Article 27 [WWW document] http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-27-e.htm.

  • Klein HK and Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23 (1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamp JW (2004) Index of information systems journals. Geelong, Deakin University [WWW document] http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/journals/ (accessed 14 June 2010).

  • Lee A and Baskerville R (2003) Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14 (3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman H, Urquhart C and Myers M (2006) Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: a framework for grounded theory studies in information systems. University of Auckland Working Paper.

  • Lewis B, Templeton G and Luo X (2007) A scientometric investigation into the validity of IS journal quality measures. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8 (12), 619–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke K (2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen K and King J (2004) Nothing at the center? Information systems as a reference discipline? Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5 (6), 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcghee G, Marland GR and Atkinson J (2007) Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (3), 334–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills J, Bonner A and Francis K (2006) The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2001) Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist research methodology. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers M (1997) Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 21 (2), 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organisations: research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research 2, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research – a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research 12 (2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skodol-Wilson H and Ambler-Hutchinson S (1996) Methodological mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing Research 45 (2), 122–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) The Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 1st edn, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) The Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 1st edn, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby R (2006) From the Editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truex D, Holmstrom J and Keil M (2006) Theorising information systems research: a reflective analysis of the adaptation of theory in information systems research. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 7 (12), 797–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart C (2002) Regrounding grounded theory – or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief reply to Bryant. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4 (3), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart C and Fernandez W (2006) Grounded theory method: the researcher as blank slate and other myths. ICIS 2006 Proceedings. Paper 31 [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2006/31.

  • Urquhart C, Lehman H and Myers M (2010) Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal 20, 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Niekerk JC and Roode JD (2009) Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory: similar or completely different? Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, Vaal River, South Africa, October, pp 96–103.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported financially by the National Research Foundation (NRF). Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and therefore the NRF does not accept any liability in regard thereto.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Centre for IT and National Development in Africa (CITANDA), Centre for IT and National Development in Africa (CITANDA), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Rangarirai Matavire & Irwin Brown

Authors
  1. Rangarirai Matavire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irwin Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irwin Brown.

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was published in the ACM International Proceedings Series as: MATAVIRE, R. and BROWN, I. (2008). Investigating the use of ‘Grounded Theory’ in Information Systems research, Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2008 Conference, Wilderness, South Africa, 7–9 October, pp 139–147.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matavire, R., Brown, I. Profiling grounded theory approaches in information systems research. Eur J Inf Syst 22, 119–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.35

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.35

Keywords

Search

Navigation