Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to assess and explain the role of grounded theory (GT) in interpretive management accounting research (IMAR) and seeks to answer the question: can interpretive researchers use GT? And if so, how? Design/methodology/approach - This is a theoretical paper that attempts to investigate how researchers can use GT in relation to their ontological stance, methodological position and research methods. Findings - The paper suggests that GT offers a balance between the expediency of the research findings, thereby allowing researchers freedom to interpret management accounting practices, and the development of rigorous theory from IMAR. Research limitations/implications - The paper provides an analysis of GT from an interpretive perspective and, clearly, there are other research perspectives which could have been discussed. Practical implications - GT can be a powerful tool that researchers could use to collect and analyse empirical data. However, researchers need to align GT with the broader paradigm they adopt when researching social phenomena. The paper provides some general guidelines for IMARs who want to use GT in their research. Originality/value - This paper shows that GT can offer interpretive researchers a way of balancing the need to develop theory, which is grounded in everyday practices, and the recognition that the research process is inherently subjective. However, it is argued that in interpretive research GT cannot provide a simple “recipe book” which, if followed rigorously, will result in a high-quality research (i.e. valid, reliable and unbiased). Nevertheless, the guidelines provide a way for IMARs, who use GT to improve the quality of their research findings.

[1]  Nicolas Berland,et al.  Reactions to Reading 'Remaining Consistent with Method? An Analysis of Grounded Theory Research in Accounting': A Comment on Gurd , 2008 .

[2]  L. Parker Interpreting interpretive accounting research , 2008 .

[3]  Hugh Willmott,et al.  Listening, interpreting, commending: A commentary on the future of interpretive accounting research , 2008 .

[4]  Robert W. Scapens,et al.  Seeking the relevance of interpretive research: A contribution to the polyphonic debate , 2008 .

[5]  Peter Armstrong Calling out for more: Comment on the future of interpretive accounting research , 2008 .

[6]  Teemu Malmi,et al.  The future of interpretive accounting research-A polyphonic debate , 2008 .

[7]  Bruce Gurd,et al.  Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting , 2008 .

[8]  J. Baxter,et al.  The field researcher as author-writer , 2008 .

[9]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpretive management accounting research , 2008 .

[10]  Jaakko Kuorikoski,et al.  Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting , 2008 .

[11]  Jaakko Kuorikoski,et al.  No premature closures of debates, please: A response to Ahrens , 2008 .

[12]  Renate E. Meyer Review Essay , 2006 .

[13]  R. Suddaby From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not , 2006 .

[14]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  K. Francis,et al.  The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory , 2006 .

[16]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text]. , 2006, Nurse researcher.

[17]  T. Ahrens,et al.  Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory , 2005 .

[18]  A. Goddard Budgetary practices and accountability habitus , 2004 .

[19]  P. Quattrone Commenting on a commentary?: Making methodological choices in accounting , 2004 .

[20]  H. Heath,et al.  Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss. , 2004, International journal of nursing studies.

[21]  S. Llewelyn,et al.  What Counts as "Theory" in Qualitative Management and Accounting Research? Introducing Five Levels of Theorizing , 2003 .

[22]  T. McCann,et al.  Grounded theory in nursing research: Part 3--Application. , 2003, Nurse researcher.

[23]  Lee D. Parker,et al.  It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: a strategic analysis and critique of university change management , 2002 .

[24]  Christina Goulding Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers , 2002 .

[25]  Robert W. Scapens,et al.  Research Methods and Methodology in Finance and Accounting , 2002 .

[26]  L. Parker Reactive planning in a Christian Bureaucracy , 2001 .

[27]  M. Alvesson,et al.  Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research , 2000, QMiP Bulletin.

[28]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[29]  Christina Goulding Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda , 1998 .

[30]  J. Corbin Alternative Interpretations , 1998 .

[31]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[32]  L. Parker,et al.  Methodological themes: Back to the drawing board: revisiting grounded theory and the everyday accountant’s and manager’s reality , 1997 .

[33]  Robert W. Scapens,et al.  Methodological themes : Theories and case studies of organizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation? , 1996 .

[34]  Kari Lukka,et al.  The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research , 1995 .

[35]  Richard Laughlin,et al.  Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for “middle‐range” thinking , 1995 .

[36]  Sue Llewellyn,et al.  Working in hermeneutic circles in management accounting research: some implications and applications , 1993 .

[37]  B. Glaser Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing , 1992 .

[38]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[39]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[41]  E. Guba The alternative paradigm dialog. , 1990 .

[42]  Mark W. Dirsmith,et al.  DIALECTIC TENSION, DOUBLE REFLEXIVITY AND THE EVERYDAY ACCOUNTING RESEARCHER: ON USING... , 1990 .

[43]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists , 1987 .

[44]  W. Chua Radical Developments in Accounting Thought , 1986 .

[45]  T. Hopper,et al.  MAKING SENSE OF RESEARCH INTO THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING: A REVIEW OF ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS [1] , 1985 .

[46]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .