849954 sisus

Generally speaking, a grounded theory is any form of sociological theory that is
built up gradually from the careful observation of a selected social phenomenon
(Jary and Jary 2000, 254). For a common, general grounded theory the following
three targets can be manifested (Glaser and Strauss 1967, De Burca and
McLaughlin 1998). First, the theory adopts a process perspective as opposed to
a unit perspective; second, it positions itself as applicable for practitioners by
taking a social psychological level of analysis; and third, it defines the research
problem from the perspective of the focal actor. Regarding the different forms for
utilising the method, two perspectives can be distinguished: the ‘full‘, which is an
approach that comprehensively utilises all the aspects of the grounded theory.
Much of the grounded ideology is ‘partial‘, which means that there is an iterative
procedure in which data is collected first and then theoretized.
The grounded theory is not a specific method or a tight technique, as Strauss
and Corbin (1998, 5) state: ‘it is a style of doing qualitative analysis that includes
a number of distinct features‘. Besides a broad methodological solution,
grounded theory is a coding practice (Ellram 1996) in case studies, which implies
a three-step coding protocol. This means that numerous researchers, when
utilising some form of case studies, are in fact using implicitly and even unconsciously
the coding procedure typical for the theory. The systematic coding procedure
is included in the definition of general grounded theory, which is ‘a detailed
grounding by systematically and intensively analysing the data (...) of the
(...) interview (...) by constant comparison. Data are extensively collected and
coded (...) thus producing a well-constructed theory. The focus of analysis is not
merely on collecting or ordering a mass of data, but on organising many ideas
which have merged from analysis of data‘ (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 22, 23).
With the coding practice, the concept indicator is essential; it directs the conceptual
coding of a set of empirical indicators (Strauss and Corbin 1998, 25). These
indicators are the smallest units in interaction processes: the behavioural actions
and events often described in documents or in the words of interviewees. A basic
construct - an activity - consists of acts, or actions performed by actors: individuals
on microlevel, or groups of firms on macrolevel, even alliances or other
types of blocks between firms expose themselves in interactive processes.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) explain three coding protocols: open, axial and selective
ones. With open coding the aim is to produce concepts that seem to fit the
data; these concepts are mainly provisional by nature in a similar way as interpretations
are tentative. In practical analysis open coding is the first data coding
process associated with methods that ‘break down ‘case study data. Axial coding
consists of intense analysis done around one category at a time. This should
14