Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: An Example of Grounded Theory Data Analysis

Introduction

The selection of a research methodology is crucial since it guides the conduct of the research and affects the quality and the accuracy of research results (Creswell, 2014; He & van de Vijver, 2016; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012; Scandura & Williams, 2000). Remenyi et al. (1998) stress the critical role of an appropriate methodology choice in obtaining thorough knowledge about a specific problem. The extant research methods literature provides two major research paradigms: positivism and phenomenology (Collis & Hussey, 2013; Robson & McCartan, 2016). The term research paradigm has emerged from Kuhn’s (1962) view and has been used “to denote a particular worldview that constitutes a researcher’s values, beliefs and methodological assumptions” (O’Neil & Koekemoer, 2016, p. 3).

The assumptions of each paradigm show differences in terms of researchers’ ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology (Eriksson & Koalainen, 2008; Howell, 2016). While positivism describes ontology as being objective, phenomenology describes subjective (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006; Saunders et al., 2012). Typically, positivist research is equated with quantitative research but qualitative research is linked phenomenology paradigm. Therefore, different labels for these paradigms are frequently used in the methodology literature. While rationalist, normative, and quantitative terms are interchangeably used to describe the positivism paradigm, phenomenology is often termed as social constructivism, interpretivism and qualitative research.

Positivists suggest that “exploration can only be based upon observed and captured facts using direct data or information” because of the concrete and external nature of the world (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002, p. 25). However, the phenomenology paradigm posits that “the real world is determined by people rather than by objective and external observable facts” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002, p. 26). Truth and reality are deemed as social phenomena that do not act independently from social actors. Dynamics of social events along with the human activity make the social world too complex to be explained in simple positivist terms. Obviously, this complex world cannot be explored without discovering all details of social relations, events, situations and the mechanisms behind such situations (Collis & Hussey, 2013; Remenyi et al., 1998).

In the phenomenological paradigm, human activity was concerned with “a collection of symbols expressing layers of meaning” (Maqsood, 2006, p. 93). In a similar line, Blustein et al. (2005) and Willig (2013) state that phenomenological paradigm is especially relevant for the studies where work is embedded in complex layers of social, cultural, and political meanings. Therefore, the phenomena can only be analyzed and understood through “assessing the meanings that participants assign to them” (Rastrick, 2008, p. 54).

Empirical work and theoretical knowledge are often seen as the most interesting, valuable and prestigious part of a scientific study. But lack of theoretical contribution was frequently mentioned by scholars in most of the organizational research (Aytug et al., 2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2016). According to Alvesson and Kärreman (2013), “the empirical and theoretical elements are not always engaged in a productive interplay” (p. 2), since the most appropriate methodology that can bridge this gap was not always selected by researchers.