While grounded theory is mainly used for qualitative research (Glaser, 2001), it is a general method of analysis that accepts qualitative, quantitative, and hybrid data collection from surveys, experiments, and case studies (Glaser, 1978). However, when combining methods like case study and grounded theory, utmost care must be exercised to ensure that the canons of case study research do not distort true emergence for theory generation (Glaser, 1998 pp. 40-2). For example, Yin (1994, p. 28) states ‘theory development prior to the collection of any case study data is an essential step in doing case studies.’ This statement, perfectly valid for some case study research, contravenes a key principle of grounded theory. Therefore, when combining case study and grounded theory, the researcher must clearly specify which methodology is driving the investigation.
I used grounded theory as the overarching methodology to study data from an exploratory case study and to drive data acquisition activities within and outside the case study. Yet, the reason for using the grounded theory approach was consistent with the three main reasons suggested by Benbasat et al. (1987) for using a case study strategy in IS research, namely:
The research can study IS in a natural setting, learn the state of the art, and generate theories from practice.
The researcher can answer the questions that lead to an understanding of the nature and complexity of the processes taking place.
It is an appropriate way to research a previously little studied area.
Additionally, as I had professional experience in the substantive area of my study, grounded theory was an appropriate approach because it provided a method to deal with my experience, controlling the risk of introducing bias into the study. This control is achieved by the constant comparative method, which forces researchers to state their assumptions and their own knowledge as data (in the form of memos or self-interviews) and to compare these data with other data from the study. The constant comparison of incidents then validates, modifies, or rejects the expert researchers’ observations. Thus, for researchers with professional experience in the substantive field of their research, constant comparison is a valuable feature of the grounded theory method. To be sure, constant comparison reduces, but cannot completely eliminate, the risk of bias-induced distortions.
For these reasons, seeking to generate theory grounded in case study data was a particularly appropriate strategy for my research. Furthermore, this approach has been tested and detailed by Eisenhardt (1989) and it is one of the preferred ways of doing grounded theory in IS research (Lehmann, 2001b; Maznevski and Chudoba, 2000; Orlikowski, 1993; Urquhart, 2001). According to Eisenhardt (1989), using case data to build grounded theory has three major strengths:
Theory building from case studies is likely to produce novel theory; this is so because ‘creative insight often arises from juxtaposition of contradictory or paradoxical evidence’ (p. 546). The process of reconciling these accounts using the constant comparative method forces the analyst to a new gestalt, unfreezing thinking and producing ‘theory with less researcher bias than theory built from incremental studies or armchair, axiomatic deduction’ (p. 546).
The emergent theory ‘is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily measured and hypotheses that can be proven false’ (p. 547). Due to the close connection between theory and data it is likely that the theory can be further tested and expanded by subsequent studies.
The ‘resultant theory is likely to be empirically valid’ (p. 547). This is so because a level of validation is performed implicitly by constant comparison, questioning the data from the start of the process. ‘This closeness can lead to an intimate sense of things’ that ‘often produces theory which closely mirrors reality’ (p. 547).[4]
Recent evidence shows that the combination of case studies and grounded theory has been rewarding for IS researchers. For example, Lehmann (2001a, p. 87) claims that:
Applying Grounded Theory to Case Study was very successful. It produced a prolific amount and yielded a great richness of information. … The case settings, furthermore, contained more varied data than could be expected from individual, purely homocentric studies. Efficiency and abundance combined to make this method an exceedingly fruitful one.
According to Dr Anne Persson (Department of Computer Science, University of Skövde, Sweden), ‘I have to say that the combination of case studies and [Grounded Theory] has been very rewarding. I seriously doubt that I would have achieved my goal without that combination’ (personal correspondence, 13 Sept. 2001, 08:27:38). My experience with the method further attests to these expressions of satisfaction.