The Implementation of Grounded Theory Approach in Management Research

Abstract

Extended Summary

Although grounded theory, a qualitative research approach, is now considered to be a mature approach, it has recently begun to draw attention, due to the rising interest in qualitative research over the last few years in Turkey. The fact that the grounded theory literature has a variety of applications causes the studies to be altered. This study was conducted to contribute to the understanding and implementation of the grounded theory approach by management science researchers. The study undertakes a literature survey of the emergence of the grounded theory approach, its basic philosophy, the processes that it has undergone, and its application methods have been presented in the first place. Then, the literature in regards to the use of the theory in management research is reviewed. Finally, the use of grounded theory approach in management research in Turkey has been introduced in this study.

It is important to study qualitative research, which can be expressed as the reflection of post-modern philosophy on methodology and has been rapidly spreading in Turkey especially in recent years. Due to the diversity of philosophies it adopts each qualitative research approach requires a stance. Grounded theory started to be adopted as a qualitative method in Turkish academia after 2013. Although it is not a method commonly used in qualitative research studies in the field of management and organization, this approach has been used in the United States since 1970. It is thought that the main reason for this is the researcher paradigm, as researcher paradigm has a profound effect on research methodology (Rahmani & Leifels, 2018).

In order to understand the process of the emergence of new researcher paradigms, and to help contribute to the foundation of the qualitative research paradigm emerging in Turkey in recent years, the paper undertakes a literature survey regarding the emergence of the grounded theory approach, its basic philosophy, processes and codes of practice. Subsequent to this step, in terms of its use in management research, the literature regarding the suitability of the approach for use in applied studies such as management is considered. Following this, the use of grounded theory in management research in Turkey are given. In the researchs examined, it has been found that grounded theory approach has been mostly used as data analysis strategy and frequently referred to Strauss and Corbin.

Following the publication of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s prominent work in medical sociology “The Discovery of Grounded Theory”, grounded theory, which came into being in the mid-1960s, has been interpreted hetrogenously by different researchers, resulting in variations in its practice over time. In Turkey, grounded theory is generally understood as a technique used to carry out studies. However, this paper has operated with the conviction that qualitative methods are a philosophical stance and that grounded theory is a paradigm.

Efforts to formulate a theory in the fields of management and organization mainly include issues such as socialization, decision-making, change and leadership. In addition, interactions that occur at the individual, group and organization levels, as well as informal behaviors embedded in formal organizations are some of the subjects of research considered in this field. Grounded theory thus seems to be quite suitable for studies conducted around the issues of the legacy of interactionism and complex management and organization. The main problems faced here are the lack of researcher profiles, and awareness of why and how the approach to be adopted should be applied.

To determine the operational status of the grounded theory approach in management research in Turkey, “gömülü teori,” “grounded theory” and “temellendirilmiş kuram” were utilised as keywords in searching ULAKBIM Kesif, Google Scholar, TR Index and Journal Parks search engines as a basis for the literature review. This screening process revealed that grounded theory is more widely used in the field of psychology and education, in comparison to other fields in Turkey. However, although the grounded theory approach has been used in some studies in management and organization, the approach has not been implemented satisfactorily, in terms of the afore mentioned points. Some of the papers merely mention the term “grounded theory” in their keywords, but there is no use of grounded theory methodology in the studies. In the researches examined in this study found that content analyses, case studies and phenomenology have also been used in conjunction with the grounded theory. Within these studies, although not all of the researchers indicated which grounded theory approach they adopted, all of them made references to Strauss and Corbin. Three of the eight studies examined were studies produced from dissertations. The significant finding here, which is thought to be originated from the doctoral education process, is that the approach is used more effectively in the studies conducted at the level of doctoral dissertation. This would suggest that future studies will likely be conducted in accordance with the research paradigm.

Grounded theory is not an analytical approach to be applied so as to obtain methodological legitimacy. Nor is it a routine data analysis technique. It is a stance and a research philosophy. It is worth re-iterating the fact that there are many risks (such as inability to achieve purpose, mistake in the collection and evaluation of data) awaiting researchers who are considering using grounded theory from now on in their studies. Instead of revering any specific methodology, it is essential to adopt the appropriate method and technique for the purpose of the research. The grounded theory approach can be recommended to researchers working in the field of management in Turkey, as it is suitable for interactive areas. However, before all else, the approach must ontologically, epistemologically and methodologically be understood. For this purpose, especially at the doctoral level, philosophy of science and qualitative research approaches should be taught together with research methods and techniques.

Keywords

• Qualitative methodology,grounded theory,management research

Gömülü Teori Yaklaşımının Yönetim Araştırmalarında Kullanımı

Abstract

Nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından biri olan gömülü teori, zamansal olarak olgun bir yaklaşım olma niteliği taşısa da ülkemizde nitel araştırmaya olan ilginin son yıllarda artması sayesinde yeni dikkat çekmeye başlamıştır. Gömülü teori literatürünün uygulama çeşitliliğine sahip olması, yapılan çalışmaların da değişiklik göstermesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu çalışma, gömülü teori yaklaşımının, yönetim bilim araştırmacıları tarafından doğru anlaşılıp, uygulanmasına katkı sağlama amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışmada öncelikle, gömülü teori yaklaşımının ortaya çıkışı, temel felsefesi, geçirdiği süreçler ve uygulanmasına ilişkin literatür taraması verilmiştir. Ardından yönetim araştırmalarında kullanımına ilişkin literatür sunulmuştur. Son olarak Türkiye’de gömülü teori yaklaşımının yönetim araştırmalarında kullanımı verilmiştir. İncelenen çalışmalarda, gömülü teori yaklaşımının daha çok veri analiz etme stratejisi olarak kullanıldığı ve sıklıkla Strauss ve Corbin’e atıf yapıldığı tespit edilmiştir. 

Keywords

• gömülü teori,Nitel araştırma yöntemi,yönetim araştırmaları

References

1. Acar, P., & Acar, A. Z. (2019). İşletmelerde uzaktan çalışanların yönetilmesi:lojistik sektöründe nitel bir alan araştırması. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(4), 514-526.
2. Aksakal, N., & Kırkaya, İ. (2013). Gömülü teori: spor bilimlerinde kullanılabilirliği. CBÜ Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1),1-10.
3. Arık, F., & Arık, I. A. (2016). Grounded teori metodolojisi ve türkiye’de grounded teori çalışmaları. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 58, 285-309.
4. Aydın, A., Selvitopu, A., & Kaya, M. (2018). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim yönetimi alanında üretilen doktora tezlerine ilişkin bir inceleme. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 8(2), 305-313.
5. Bamford, D. (2008). The use of grounded theory in change management research. Journal of Change Management, 8(2), 111-121.
6. Binder, M., & Edwards, J. S. (2010). Using grounded theory method for theory building in operations management research a study on inter-firm relationship governance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(3), 232-259.
7. Connor, A. O., Carpenter, B., & Coughlan, B. (2018). An exploration of key ıssues in the debate between classic and constructivist grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 17(1), 90-103.
8. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

9. Çelik, R. (2016). Semantik analiz ve gömülü teori çerçevesinde sağlığın kültürleşmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
10. Demirci, M. (2014). Çevre politikasında bilimin otoritesi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 22, 174-201.
11. Dikeçligil, B. (2006‐2009). Sosyal bilimler epistemolojisinde sorunların kaynağı: ontolojiyi unutmak. Toplum Bilimleri, 1(3), 47‐67.
12. Erdoğan, E., & Acar, P. (2019). Cam tavan sendromu bağlamında kadın ve iş yaşamı: eğitim sektöründe nitel bir araştırma. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 6(40), 2125-2134.
13. Ertem, M., & Kılınç, İ. (2018). Stratejik karar vermede kültür: yeniçeriler ve paralı askerler. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 17(68), 1337-1373.
14. Faiz, E., & Üner, M. (2015). Uluslararası girişimciliğin proaktiflik boyutu: küresel doğan işletmeler üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 70(4), 957-981.
15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: dynamics of science and research in contemporary societes. SAGE Pub.
16. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum. Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), Art. 12.
17. Glaser, B. G. (2010). The future of grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 9(2),1-14.
18. Holton, J. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. &. K. In A. Bryant içinde, The Sage handbook of grounded theory (s. 65-289). Sage Publications.
19. Holton, J. (2011). Creativity autonomy: early influences in the emergence of classic grounded theory methodology. European Sociological Association Annual Conference. University of Geneva.
20. Holton, J. A. (2011). The autonomous creativity of barney g. glaser: early ınluences in the emergence of classic grounded theory methodology. V. B. Martin, & A. Gynnild içinde, Grounded theory: the philosophy, method, and work of Barney Glaser (s. 201-224). Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press.
21. Holton, J. A. (2019). From grounded theory to grounded theorizing in qualitative research. S. R. methods içinde, The Sage Handbook qualitative business and management research methods: history and traditions. SAGE Publications Ltd .
22. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/. (2019). Focus and scopes.
23. http://www.groundedtheory.com/. (2019). What is grounded theory?
24. Kempster, S., & Parry, K. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: a critical realist perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 106–120.
25. Kocabıyık, O. O. (2015). Olgubilim ve gömülü kuram: bazı özellikler açısından karşılaştırma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 55-66.
26. Koç, O., & Demir, İ. (2013). Aktörler kurumsal değişime direnir mi? türk emniyet teşkilatı örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17 (1), 1-2.
27. Koyuncuoğlu, Ö. (2018). Türkiye'de girişimci ve yenilikçi üniversitelerin gömülü teoriye göre değerlendirmesi ve bir model önerisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
28. Koyuncuoğlu, Ö., & Tekin, M. (2019). Türkiye’de girişimci ve yenilikçi üniversitelerin gömülü teoriye göre değerlendirmesi ve bir model önerisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 41, 16-31.
29. Kutluk, A., & Arpacı, Ö. (2016). E-Wom bağlamında seyahat acentalarına yönelik e-şikâyetlerin gömülü teori ve içerik analizi ile incelenmesi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(35), 367-386.
30. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
31. Manav, G. (2019). Hemşirelik araştırmalarında gömülü teori. Jaren, 5(1):73-80.
32. McAdam, R., Leonardb, D., Hendersonc, J., & Hazlett, S.-A. (2008). Agrounded theory research approach to building and testing tqm theory in operations management. Omega, 36, 825 – 837.
33. Nohutçu, A. (2006). Bilgi toplumunda yükseköğretim kurumlarının yeniden yapılandırılması ve yönetimi: başlıca eğilimler, gelişmeler ve bologna süreci. Journal of Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Management, Special Issue.
34. Partington, D. (2000). Building grounded theories of management action. British Journal of Management, 11, 91-102.
35. Rahmani, F., & Leifels, K. (2018). Abductive grounded theory: a worked example of a study in construction management. Construction Management and Economics, 36(10), 565-583.
36. Romana, D. J., Osinskib, M., & Erdmann, R. H. (2017). The construction process of grounded theory in administration. Contaduría y Administración, 62,985–1000.
37. Sato, H. (2019). Using grounded theory approach in management research. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 1-10.
38. Seidel, S., & Recker, J. C. (2009). Using Grounded Theory for Studying Business Process Management Phenomena. In: The 17th European Conference on Information Systems, 8-10 June 2009, Faculty of Economics of the University of Verona. Verona.
39. Simmons, O. E. (2010). Is that a real theory or did you just make ıt up? teaching classic grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 15-38.
40. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory ıs not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.
41. Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: a pragmatic ıntroduction to doing gt research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1-10.
42. Usgurlu, V. (2018). Performansa Dayalı Lojistik (Pdl): Türk Savunma Sektöründen Mülahazalar. Türk Hava Kurumu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
43. Ünal, A. (2019). İşletmelerde Yapay Zekâların İcra Kurulu Başkanı Olabilirliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Düzce Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi.
44. Ünal, A., & Çatı, K. (2016). Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin girişimcilik serüveni: bir gömülü teori araştırması. Journal of Entrepreneurship & Development, 11(1), 85-121.
45. Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. (2015). what grounded theory ıs . . . a critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 1-15.
46. Ziman, J. (1996). Post-academic science: constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67-80.