METHODS ARTICLE GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH1 Manuel Wiesche Technische Universität München, Chair for Information Systems, Munich, GERMANY {[email protected]} Marlen C. Jurisch City of Munich, Department for IT-Strategy, IT-Controlling, & IT Governance Munich, GERMANY {[email protected]} Philip W. Yetton Deakin University, Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, Burwood, Victoria, AUSTRALIA {[email protected]} Helmut Krcmar Technische Universität München, Chair for Information Systems, Munich, GERMANY {[email protected]} Grounded theory methodology (GTM), with its espoused goal of theory development of novel phenomena, has found broad application in Information Systems (IS) research. To investigate how GTM is applied in IS research and how the research contributions are contingent on those applications, we review 43 GTM-based articles in major IS and related journals. Ten of the articles develop theory. The other 33 articles use GTM to develop models and rich descriptions of new phenomena as their theoretical contribution. We show that each of the three forms is valuable to the IS community. For example, studies that develop theories and models are highly cited in the IS literature. We identify nine GTM procedures that are applied in various combinations to develop the three forms of research contribution. Treating GTM as a portfolio of the nine procedures, we examine the implications for the research contribution of adopting the core GTM procedures compared with a partial portfolio of those procedures. 1 Keywords: Grounded theory methodology, explorative, qualitative, research method, procedures, portfolio approach 1Fred Niederman was the accepting senior editor for this paper. The appendix for this paper is located in the “Online Supplements” section of the MIS Quarterly’s website (http://www.misq.org). © 2017 The Authors. Published by the Management Information Systems Research Center at the University of Minnesota. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. MIS Quarterly Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 685-701/September 2017 685 Wiesche et al./Grounded Theory Methodology in IS Research Introduction In making the distinction among the three forms of research contribution, we define theories to include the definitions of Grounded theory methodology (GTM) is designed to enable the relevant variables, the relationships among those vari- the discovery of inductive theory. It “allows the researcher to ables, the justifications for those relationships, and the bound- develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic aries of the theory (Sutton and Staw 1995; Whetten 1989). while simultaneously grounding the account in empirical Models include the definitions of the relevant variables and observations or data” (Martin and Turner 1986, p. 141). the relationships among those variables but do not fully justify Developed four decades ago, GTM has become one of the those relationships and specify their boundaries. Thus, most frequently adopted qualitative research methods in social models are frequently the basis for theory development science research (Morse 2009). (Markus and Robey 1988; Sutton and Staw 1995). Rich descriptions are narratives based on empirical observations The GTM literature provides researchers with guidelines, without abstraction (Van Maanen 1990). advice, and perspectives regarding its use and to ensure the rigor of the research contribution (see Charmaz 2011; Glaser The form of the research contribution is contingent2 on the 1978; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Urquhart 2002). The method GTM procedures adopted. The development of theory is fre- is particularly relevant for research on issues for which quently contingent on the adoption of the full range of GTM limited prior research has been conducted and for which procedures. In contrast, models and rich descriptions are theory building is needed (Fernandez 2004; Lehmann 2010; frequently reported by studies that adopt a partial portfolio of Seidel and Urquhart 2013). In IS research, GTM has been GTM procedures. In addition, the analysis shows that GTM chosen frequently to study technological change and socio- articles that develop theory are highly cited compared with technical behavior in emerging research domains (Birks et al. non-GTM articles published in the same journal in the same 2013; Matavire and Brown 2013; Urquhart and Fernandez year. GTM articles that develop models are also highly cited. 2006). Citation counts are lower for articles that develop rich descriptions. However, for two reasons, we contend that IS research has not exploited GTM to its full potential. One is that many studies The rest of the paper is organized into four sections. First, a do not develop theory, which is the espoused goal of GTM framework is developed that includes the research contribu- (Lehmann 2010; Urquhart et al. 2010). While each of the tion, the GTM procedures adopted, and the GTM context that three forms of GTM results makes a theoretical contribution, guides our analysis. Second, the study design is presented. we make a formal distinction between developing new theory Third, we report the findings for and analysis of the GTM and developing models and rich descriptions of new phenom- procedures adopted, their effects on the research contribution, ena. The other reason is that there is ambiguity concerning and the influence of those contributions on the IS literature. how GTM should be applied in IS research (Birks et al. 2013; Fourth, we discuss the findings and the implications for IS Sarker et al. 2013; Seidel and Urquhart 2013; Urquhart and research. Fernandez 2006). In practice, the various applications of GTM challenge researchers, journal editors, and reviewers (Hughes and Jones A Framework for Investigating 2003; Morse 2009). IS researchers would benefit from addi- GTM in IS Research tional guidance on the appropriate applications of GTM procedures, particularly with regard to the consequences of GTM articles differ in the form of the research contribution the procedures chosen for the form of the research contribu- that they make. These forms range from developing theory, tion (Sarker 2007). Editors and reviewers would benefit from the espoused goal of GTM, to publishing rich descriptions of a more nuanced understanding of the different forms of new phenomena (Birks and Mills 2011; Lehmann 2010; research contribution from GTM-based IS research (Sarker et Urquhart et al. 2010). For this research, we classify GTM al. 2013). research contributions in IS as the development of theories, models, and rich descriptions. To explore these issues, we investigate how GTM is applied in IS research and how research contributions are contingent on the procedures adopted. To do this, we present a review of 2In using the word contingent, we do not claim that the findings test for 43 GTM-based IS articles published before April 2013. We causality and its direction in the relationship. Rather, accepting the assump- classify the research contribution of each article as taking one tion in GTM that the methodology is the mechanism on which the research contribution is contingent, we show how, in this particular relationship and of three forms: theories, models, and rich descriptions of in the subsequent relationships reported in this paper, the research contribu- phenomena. tion is contingent on the GTM procedures adopted. 686 MIS Quarterly Vol. 41 No. 3/September 2017 Wiesche et al./Grounded Theory Methodology in IS Research Table 1. Three Forms of Research Contribution Form of Research Contribution Description Reference Theory Statements of descriptions, definitions of variables, their Sutton and Staw 1995; relationships, justifications for those relationships, and the Whetten 1989 boundaries of the theory. Model Definitions of abstract variables and their relationships. Markus and Robey 1988; Sutton and Staw 1995 Rich description Narratives of empirical observations without abstraction. Hambrick 2007; Van Maanen 1990 It is generally accepted that the application of GTM requires prise both descriptions and explanations. Descriptions are tailoring GTM procedures to the research context (Hughes empirical narratives that illustrate the author’s arguments. and Jones 2003; Morse 2009). However, disagreement exists Explanations specify the logic that justifies the selection of regarding the degree of tailoring that is appropriate (Sarker factors, the proposed causal relationships, and the boundaries 2007). Positions range from loose (Hood 2007; Locke 1996; of the theory (Bacharach 1989; Whetten 1989). Strauss 1987) to strict (Birks et al. 2013; Glaser 1992; Goulding 1999) adaptations. However, there is limited empir- Markus and Robey (1988) and Sutton and Staw (1995) define ical research on how the various positions affect the form of models as definitions of abstract variables and their relation- the research contribution that is developed. ships. These variables and relationships are based on gener- alizations from data. Critically, models do not provide In addition, the application of GTM in IS depends on other explanations for the relationships (Davis and Marquis 2005; contextual factors, including access to the research site and Silverman 2014). In this sense, models are pre-theoretical the duration of the study. Here, we develop a framework to