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 contribute 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).

Furthermore, research that focuses on actors’ perspectives provides actors with opportunities to articulate their thoughts about issues they consider important (Glaser, 1998). This articulation allows participants to reflect on empirically significant events (to them), gaining further understanding of past actions and acquiring new insights.^[11]

I experienced a high level of participant cooperation while conducting my grounded theory study. This can be partly attributed to the open nature of the interviews, the focus on experiences as perceived by the actors, the method forcing me to act as a very active listener, and my being perceived as an ‘insider’ to whom the accounts did not require too much ‘proper lining’.^[12]

Consequently, I was intellectually stimulated by interacting with rich data, by the participants’ positive attitude towards the research, and by a sense of contributing to a wider audience. This positive feedback helped to counteract the heavy demands grounded theory poses on researchers, as previously described. These demands are real; they should not be underestimated by those contemplating the adoption of the grounded theory method. But when these demands and risks are satisfactorily addressed, grounded theory offers a very strong methodological foundation for IS researchers wanting to engage in theory-building studies of emerging socio-technical phenomena.