From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not Author(s): Roy Suddaby Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Aug., 2006), pp. 633-642 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159789 Accessed: 20-09-2016 15:32 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal This content downloaded from 198.137.20.6 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:32:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ? Academy of Management Journal 2006, Vol. 49, No. 4, 633-642. FROM THE EDITORS: WHAT GROUNDED THEORY IS NOT ROY SUDDABY University of Alberta Editor's Note. Three years ago, I invited Robert In the manuscripts I review for AMJ I have seen the (Bob) Gephart to write a "From the Editors" column term "grounded theory" used to describe analysis designed to help authors improve their chances of via correlations, word counts, and pure introspec success when submitting qualitative research to tion. I am not suggesting that these techniques can AMJ. Judging from the increasing number of quali not be used in a grounded theory study. But I note, tative studies that have been accepted and pub with some concern, that "grounded theory" is often lished in AMJ since that time, I would like to think used as rhetorical sleight of hand by authors who that his article, "Qualitative Research and the are unfamiliar with qualitative research and who Academy of Management Journal," has had a pos wish to avoid close description or illumination of itive impact. their methods. More disturbing, perhaps, is that it Continuing in this tradition, I asked Roy Sud becomes apparent, when one pushes them to de daby?an excellent reviewer (and author) of quali scribe their methods, that many authors hold some tative research?to tackle another "big issue" that serious misconceptions about grounded theory. the editorial team has noticed with respect to qual What are these misconceptions? Before reviewing itative submissions to AMJ: overly generic use of them, I offer you a short description of what grounded the term "grounded theory" and confusion regard theory is. Like most difficult subjects, grounded the ing alternative epistemological approaches to qual ory is best understood historically. The methodology itative research. Like Bob before him, Roy has, I was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a believe, produced an analysis that will greatly ben reaction against the extreme positivism that had per efit those who are relatively new to qualitative re meated most social research. They disputed the view search or who have not yet had much success in that the social and natural sciences dealt with the getting their qualitative research published. Hope same type of subject matter. Specifically, Glaser and fully, Roy's analysis will help even more authors to Strauss challenged prevalent assumptions of "grand succeed, thus allowing AMJ and other journals to theory," the notion that the purpose of social research continue to increase the quality of insights pro is to uncover preexisting and universal explanations vided by rich qualitative studies of individual, or of social behavior. In making their challenge, Glaser ganizational, and institutional phenomena. and Strauss looked to the pragmatism of Charles Sara L. Rynes Saunders Peirce (1839-1914) and early symbolic in teractionists, particularly George Herbert Mead I was not particularly surprised to observe that (1863-1931) and Charles Cooley (1864-1929), each most of the articles identified as "interesting re of whom rejected the notion that scientific truth re search" in a recent AMJ survey were the product of flects an independent external reality. Instead, they qualitative methods (Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, argued that scientific truth results from both the act of 2006). New discoveries are always the result of observation and the emerging consensus within a high-risk expeditions into unknown territory. Dar community of observers as they make sense of what win, Columbus, and Freud, each in different ways, they have observed. In this pragmatic approach to were conducting qualitative inquiries. social science research, empirical "reality" is seen as I am continually surprised, however, by the pro the ongoing interpretation of meaning produced by found misunderstanding of what constitutes quali individuals engaged in a common project of observation. tative research. Such confusion is most apparent when authors claim to be using "grounded theory." Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed grounded theory as a practical method for conducting re search that focuses on the interpretive process by Thanks to Sara Rynes for suggesting and commenting analyzing the "the actual production of meanings on this paper. Thanks also to Chet Miller, Jean Bartunek, and concepts used by social actors in real settings" Kristine Fitch, Chris Quinn-Trank, and Marvin Washing (Gephart, 2004: 457). They argued that new theory ton for very helpful comments on early drafts. could be developed by paying careful attention to 633 This content downloaded from 198.137.20.6 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:32:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 634 Academy of Management Journal August the contrast between "the daily realities (what is SIX COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS actually going on) of substantive areas" (Glaser & Grounded Theory Is Not an Excuse to Ignore the Strauss, 1967: 239) and the interpretations of those Literature daily realities made by those who participate in them (the "actors"). They also rejected positivist A common misassumption is that grounded the notions of falsification and hypothesis testing and, ory requires a researcher to enter the field without instead, described an organic process of theory any knowledge of prior research. There are several emergence based on how well data fit conceptual variants of this myth, each based on the false categories identified by an observer, by how well premise that the researcher is a blank sheet devoid the categories explain or predict ongoing interpre of experience or knowledge. An extreme variant is tations, and by how relevant the categories are to the notion that not only must the researcher enter the core issues being observed. Most significantly, the field with a blank mind (i.e., without knowl Glaser and Strauss offered a compromise between edge of the literature and absent prior experience), extreme empiricism and complete relativism by ar but that she or he must also enter the field with a ticulating a middle ground in which systematic blank agenda (i.e., without a defined research ques data collection could be used to develop theories tion). A less extreme, but more problematic, ver that address the interpretive realities of actors in sion suggests that the researcher must defer reading social settings. existing theory until the data are collected and The method described by Glaser and Strauss analyzed. This notion is reflected in manuscripts (1967) is built upon two key concepts: "constant whose authors avoid any mention of prior literature comparison," in which data are collected and ana until their papers' discussions or concluding sec lyzed simultaneously, and "theoretical sampling," tions. In a similar variant, researchers use grounded in which decisions about which data should be theory to tackle a subject that is in "well-tilled collected next are determined by the theory that is soil"?that is, a subject that has attracted a long and being constructed. Both concepts violate long credible history of empirical research?and use standing positivist assumptions about how the re grounded theory as a justification for ignoring prior search process should work. Constant comparison research in formulating their study. contradicts the myth of a clean separation between Leaving aside the question of whether it is even data collection and analysis. Theoretical sampling possible to disregard one's prior knowledge and violates the ideal of hypothesis testing in that the experience, the idea that reasonable research can be direction of new data collection is determined, not conducted without a clear research question and by a priori hypotheses, but by ongoing interpreta absent theory simply defies logic. Such research, as tion of data and emerging conceptual categories. Ronald Coase famously observed, is likely to pro Grounded theory, therefore, is a method that is duce a random "mass of descriptive material wait more appropriate for some questions than others. ing for a theory, or a fire" (Coase, 1988: 230). To Clearly, it is most suited to efforts to understand the tally unstructured research produces totally process by which actors construct meaning out of unstructured manuscripts that are unlikely to make intersubjective experience. Grounded theory it past the desk editor at any credible journal of should also be used in a way that is logically con social science. sistent with key assumptions about social reality The notion of using grounded theory as an ex and how that reality is "known." It is less appro cuse to forgo examining extant literature is perhaps priate, for example, to use grounded theory when more problematic because it is often based on a you seek to make knowledge claims about an ob researcher's desire to discover something new. This jective reality, and more appropriate to do so when desire most often manifests when researchers use you want to make knowledge claims about how grounded theory to tackle well-established areas of individuals interpret reality.