1

Grounded Theory in Management Application:A Step by Step

Arry Pongtiku*

“In doing Grounded Theory, I endeavored to emphasize the complexity of the world and therefore thefreedom, autonomy, and license required to write generated theory that explains what is going on

in this world, starting with substantive areas” Glaser ( 2002)

AbstractThe analytic strategy of grounded theory had been used in several studies in various related fields suchas management,marketing and tourism. However, the approach to discovering theory from data known asgrounded theory is much cited but little understood, the grounded theory has seen relatively littleproductive discussion in management literature (Partington ,2000).Grounded Theory (GT) is perhaps oneof the most abused phrases in qualitative study andincreasingly researchers are making claims to haveused a GT approach ( Green and Thorogood ,2004). There are assumptions that Grounded Approach isdifficult and could be only better employed by team of researchers or by a more experienced researcherwho could dealt with the complexities and contradictions of this approach .GT needs self confidence andcreativeness.GT is not easy for the beginners (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004; Munir cited in Salim ,2006). Mode 2 of GT offers more practical approach in building theory in management. Twocharacteristics of mode 2 enquiries aretransdiciplinarity and emphasis on tacit knowledge. This paper willdescribestep by step in data analysis of GT and support references as well as my experience as agrounded researcher

I. IntroductionGrounded theory methodology was firstly introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 with theirphenomenal book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory”. The Grounded Theory Perspectivecited in Glaser (2002) argued: “All is data is a well known Glaser dictum. What does it means?It means exactly what is going on in the research scene is the data, whatever the source,whether interview, observations, documents, in whatever combination. It is not only what isbeing told, how it is being told and the conditions of its being told, but also all data surroundingwhat is being told. It means what is going on must be figured out exactly what it is to be usedfor, that is conceptualization, not for accurate description. Data is always as good as far as itgoes, and there is always more data to keep correcting the categories with more relevantproperties”.Brown et al (2002) suggest grounded theory methodology has following eightassumptions:

1. The need to get out into the field to discover what is really going on (i.e., to gain firsthandinformation taken from its source.

2. The relevance of theory, grounded in data, to the development of a discipline and as abasis for social action.

3. The complexity and variability of phenomena and of human action.4. The belief that persons are actors who take an active role in responding to problematic

situations.5. The realization that persons act on the basis of meaning.6. The understanding that meaning is defined and redefined through interaction.7. A sensitivity to the evolving and unfolding nature of events (process).8. An awareness of the interrelationships among conditions (structure), action (process)

and consequences.

*National Health Consultant for Papua and West Papua and Netherlands Leprosy Relief; FormerCSR consultantfor NP Oil and Gas Company-Rombebai BV. Visiting lecturer for management in University of Cendrawasih andUniversity of YAPIS Papua. Correspondence: arrypongtiku@ymail.com

2

Glaser concludes two most important properties of conceptualizing for generating groundedtheory are that concepts are abstract of time, place, and people, and that concepts haveenduring grab. The appeal of these two properties can literally go on forever as an applied wayof seeing events (Glaser, 2002).

A theory which is generated from grounded method must be based on a phenomenon, notstarted on data (Emzir, 2008). As cited in Munir (2006), Strauss and Corbin say (1990) theoriescan not be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that are from rawdata. A theory is built from concept, not directly from data. Concept is resulted from theconceptualization of data: The incidents, event, happenings are taken as, or analyzed as,potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. If a respondentsay to researcher, “Each day I spread my activities over the morning, resting between shavingand bathing,” then the researcher might label this phenomenon as ‘pacing’. As the researcherencounters other incident, and when after comparison to the first, they appear to resemble thesame phenomena, then these, too, can be labeled as ’pacing’. Only by comparing incidents andnaming like phenomena with the same term can the theorist accumulate the basic units fortheory.Aword of Phenomenon (New Webster’s Dictionary and Roget’s Thesaurus, 1992) meansanything appearing or observed especially if having scientific interest. (Partington, 2000) saysthat phenomenology refers to “reality is socially constructed, and consists of individuals’interpretation of their circumstances. Knowledge comes from the penetration by the researchesof the meanings that make up the individuals’ views of reality. The researcher’s role is toreconstruct those meanings”.

Strauss and Corbin (1990) quoted in Munir (2006), Categories are higher in level and moreabstract than the concepts they represent. They are generated through the same analyticprocess of making comparisons to highlight similarities and differences. Categories are thecornerstone of developing theory. They provide the means by which the theory can beintegrated. We can show how the grouping of concepts forms categories by continuing with theexample above. In addition to the concept of pacing, the analysis might generate the conceptsof ‘self-medicating’, ‘resting’ and’ watching one ‘s diet’. While coding, the analyst may note that,although these concepts are different in form, they seem to represent activities directed towarda similar process: keeping an illness under control. They could be grouped under a moreabstract heading, they category: ’Self Strategies for controlling illness’.

A qualitative research aims to understand a phenomenon and develops researcher’simaginations. It does not take for explanation or interpretation among variables as in quantitativemethod (Salladien, 2008). Neuman (2003) explains that “some people believe that qualitativedata are soft, intangible and immaterial. Such data are so fuzzy and elusive that researcherscannot really capture them. This is not necessarily the cas`e. Qualitative data are empherical.They involve documenting real events, recording what people say (with words, gesture andtone), observing specific behaviors, studying written documents or examining visual images.These are all concrete aspects of the world”.Strauss and Corbin, 1990 cited in Neuman, 2003explain that grounded theory is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set ofprocedures to develop an inductively derived theory about a phenomenon. Bungin (2007) in aprovocative way says that researcher comes into the field with “empty headed” or withoutbringing any concept, theory or hypothesis. It is indeed phenomenon, inductively observed asGlaser and Strauss’s report on phenomena between hospital staffs and dying patients in theirbook. However, Kuhn, 1962 and Feyerabend, 1962 cited in Crompton (accessed on 3/25/2009)observations are not entirely free from the influences of theories.

Partington (2000) says the paradigm model is at the core of Strauss and Corbin’s method.It consists of a systematized cause- and –effect schema which the researcher uses to explicaterelationships between categories and subcategories. It can describe as follows: (A) CausalConditions --- (B) Phenomenon---(C) Context--- (D) Intervening Conditions--- (E)Action/Interaction Strategies --- (F) Consequences. The Grounded research model emphasizes

3

an observation method and develops an intuitive relationship among variables studied. Thesteps of research are started by examining formulations and redeveloping propositions duringgenerating a new theory (Salladien, 2008).

Faisal S (2007) describes the grounded theory is considered as an alternative approachtowards a classical one (verificative study). The grounded theory moves from the bottom to thetop namely empherical data-conceptual- theoretical. Similarly, Moleong (2008),Pandit (1996) theprocess of developing the grounded theory is Theoretical Sampling (1)---Data collections(2)---Data ordering(3)---Data Analysis(4)--- theory development (5)---if theory saturation the studyfinished(6) and if not saturation the study continued. Dick (accessed 8/19/2002) says that overtime, the grounded theory study works through the following mostly-overlapping phases: datacollection, note taking, coding, memoing, sorting and writing. This research tries to understandand to analyze more deeply the relationship based on facts (data, interview and observation)and finally compared with literature review in generating a theory. Creswell (1994) shows aninductive model of thinking or logic to build a new theory as follows:

Figure 1.The Inductive Model of Research in a Qualitative StudySource: Creswell, 1994

II. The grounded theory approach Mode 2Bryman (1988) observes “In spite of the frequency which Glaser and Strauss and the idea of

grounded theory are cited in the literature, there are comparatively few instances of itsapplication…’ (cited in Partington, 2000). Partington (2000) comments that the difficulty ofapplying universal grounded theory prescriptions is borne out by experience with doctoralstudents working the field of organization and management who attempted to follow the Straussand Corbin approach but have abandoned it because of its bewildering complexity. Indeed, inpublished management research there is little evidence of the successful application of anyprecisely delineated, prescribed approach. Partington examined such four managementgrounded theory exemplars: Brown and Eisenhardt (1977)---multiple cases studies, Gersick(1994)---single case study, Gioa and Chittipeddi (1991)---single case study and Kram andIsabella (1985)---pairs of individuals. In each of these four exemplars the output of the studies isof mode 1 type, primarily aimed at an academic audience. The purpose of development intotheories with a direct, practical use was a secondary consideration. As a result, although the

Researcher Gather Information

Researcher Asks Questions

Researcher Forms Categories

Researcher Looks for Patterns (theories)

Researcher Develops a Theory orCompares Pattern with Other Theories

4

theories generated by these studies contribute to our understanding of social processes, theyare unlikely to be of direct interest to managers. The Mode 2 was initially introduced in 1994 bysix authors :Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman,PeterScott, and Martin Trow through their book of The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamicsof Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Nowotny et al, 2003). Partington, 2000and Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2009 note in the field of management, the mode 2knowledge-production system brings together the ‘supply side’ of knowledge, includinguniversities, with the ‘demand side’, including business. The whole system depends for itseffectiveness on a rapid interplay between management theory and practice. Kurt Lewin says“Nothing is so practical as a good theory “ cited in Human Resource DevelopmentReview,2005. Partington (2000) shows how examination of the distinctive characteristics of aspecific research aim can usefully transform Strauss and Corbin’s model into a procedure whichis directly applicable to the development of S-O-R theories in mode 2 management research byGibbons et al. The differences of Mode 1 and Mode 2 are presented as below,

Table 1. Mode 1 and Mode 2: two different models for undertaking researchDifferent Research

ModelsMode I Mode II

Steering mechanism The academic discipline Problem based, multi disciplinaryAuthorization Professional rules Scientific & societal rulesObjectives New theories UsefulnessType of knowledge General SpecificTime perspective Long term Short termResponsibility The scientific community A societal responsibilityActors Researchers Participants & researchersRelationship Hierarchical EqualWorks forms Planned, predetermined Flexible, interactiveApproach Closed OpenPhysical proximity Distant CloseActors Universities Research & Development

centers, institutes, companies,regional universities

Relations Object relations Subject relationsStrategy First discovery, then

applicationSimultaneous discovery andapplication

Source: Svensson, Ellström and Brulin,2009

Chopra (2005) in Dictionary of Management defines Stimulus is initiating step intended toprovoke a predictable response. Cognition is process which uses all human senses to observethe outside world and to form perception attitudes, comprehension and memory. Luthans (2002)says cognition is the act of knowing an item of information. Under this framework, cognitionsprecede behavior and constitute input into the person’s thinking, perception, problem solving,and information processing.

If we trace back, we learn that B.F. Skinner, a modern behaviorism, who is widelyrecognized for his contributions to psychology explains respondent behavior (those behaviorelicited by stimuli) but not the more complex operant behavior. It is for example: the S-Rapproach in physical reflex, when stuck by a pin (S), the person will flinch (R), or when tappedbelow the kneecap (S), the person will extend the lower leg (R). He strengthens the importanceof the response-stimulus (R-S) relationship. The organism has to operate on the environment(thus the term operant conditioning) in order to receive the desirable consequence. Several

5

studies from Davis and Luthans; Luthans and Kreitner as well as Albert Bandura, social learningtakes the position that behavior can be best explained in terms of a continuous reciprocalinteraction among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants. The person and theenvironmental situation do not function as independent units but in conjunction with the behavioritself, reciprocally interact to determine behavior (Luthans, 2002). Raimond (1998) includes TheStimulus-Response Model by Rosch (1992) in their paper “Where Do Strategic Ideas ComeFrom? As follows: Figure 2 is a diagram of the behaviorist world-view. The first arrow, thestimulus, is something that the experimenter does to the organism (human or animal); it is in theexternal world, observable by everyone. The second arrow is what the organism does after thestimulus, also something observable by everyone. The square between the two arrows is themind, considered as black box, a box that is not publicly observable and hence not subject toscientific investigation, hence unnecessary to talk about. For the strict behaviorists, thebiological organism was also in black box. So psychologists could be completely objective; theyneed only chart the relationships between stimuli and responses.

Figure 2. The stimulus-response model

Source: Rosch, 1992

Furthermore, the information processing model takes the view that when the information orstimulus comes into the brain of the organism it has to be processed in order that theappropriate response can be made (Raimond, 1998). S-O-R (Environmental Stimulus –Cognition-Management Action) theories are concerned with how people’s understanding of theirenvironment leads to actions. The assumptions behind grounded theory’s symbolic interactionistorigins match this consideration. Two features of Mode 2 are: First, transdiciplinary research isless likely to be based on the existing, highly developed theoretical frameworks from boundeddisciplinary traditions, which tend to characterize Mode 1. Second, Mode 2 emphasizes tacitknowledge, which has not yet been codified, written down and stored. Academics andmanagers attempt to learn, working together from one another in virtuous cycle ofunderstanding, explication and action in a mutually transdisciplinary frame (Partington :2000).Takeuchi (1998) argues what Western companies need to do is “ to unlearn” their existing viewof knowledge and pay more attention to (1) tacit knowledge,(2) creating new knowledge, and (3)having everyone in the organization be involved. Japanese companies have advanced theirposition in international competition because of their skill and expertise at organizationalknowledge creation, which is the key to the distinctive way that Japanese companies innovate.Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize and share with others. Subjectiveinsights, intuitions and hunches fall into category of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is deeplyrooted in an individual’s action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions heor she embraces. Furthermore, tacit knowledge contains an important cognitive dimension. Yetthey cannot be articulated very easily, this dimension of tacit knowledge shapes the way weperceive the world around us.

Stimulus Response

6

Figure 3. The information processing modelSource: Rosch, 1992

The simplified and revised model of S-O-R will be shown below.

Figure 4. Revised grounded theory approach & Paradigm ModelSource: Partington, 2000

Mode 2 for this application analyzes recollections of past events, often recorded in interviewdata, to develop explanation of management action. Two characteristics of mode 2 enquiry aretransdiciplinarity and emphasis on tacit knowledge. The approach however offered differs in twoimportant ways from the much cited universal grounded theory model originated by Glaser andStrauss (1967) and later proceduralized by Strauss and Corbin (1990). First, it acknowledgesthat the form of theories of management actions which will satisfy the cotemporary demands ofmode 2 research is different from the form of integrated sociological theory for which the originalgrounded theory approach was developed. Second it takes account of differences between theontological assumptions underlying the use of retrospective data for analyzing managementaction, and those associated with participant observation, the pivotal strategy of grounded

Revised Approach

Interviews

S-O-R

Emphasis on normative causal model

Decisionmaking

Shorttermmemory

Simplified paradigm model

Environmental Stimulus

Cognition

Management Action

SensoryRegister(veryshortterm)

Long-termmemory(knowledge,language,goals, etc)

Response

The WorldAttention Problem

solvingStimulus

The World

7

theory’s symbolic interactionist roots. The results would be a simplified, more direct approachwhich works for the specific purpose of generating useful, consensually valid theory (Partington,2000).

Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2008 in her paper about Knowledge Production andManagement in 21st Century, in regard of new knowledge and methodology, she states that“learning is defined here as any (more or less permanent) change of behavior, which is theresult of experiences; the acquisition of knowledge, information, values, belief, norms andbehavior (where values, beliefs and norms are dependent on culture). However as learningproduces new knowledge which is the basis of innovation, and it has been shown that learningand knowledge are a social –cultural phenomena then researchers need to ‘walk the walk’ and‘talk the talk’ of ordinary people in situ”. I suggest that transdiciplinary approaches using multi-methodologies will be helpful in understanding complex social and cultural situations. Gioia andPitre (1990) broadly define theory as any coherent description or explanation of observed orexperience phenomena. As cited in Luthans (2002) “theory is the answer to queries of why.Theory is about the connections among the phenomena a story about why acts, events,structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifyingwhat comes first as well as the timing of such events. Strong theory, in our view, delves into theunderlying process so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particularly occurrence ornon-occurrence”. As cited in Totok Hari Wibowo (2005) some scholars talk about knowledgecreation. Giddens notes all social actors, all human beings are highly ‘learned’ in respect ofknowledge which they possess and apply, in the production and reproduction of day-to-daysocial encounters. He distinguish between discursive and practical knowledge, the former refersto knowledge that the actors are able to articulate (what is said), and the latter refers to tacitknowledge, which actors are able to draw on in action but are unable to express (what is simplydone).Reflexive refers to the capacity of humans to routinely observe and understand what theyare doing while they are doing it. It is not merely self-consciousness but includes continuousmonitoring or physical and social contexts and activities either their own or others. Other scholarsays knowledge conversion takes place within ‘ba’. It is the physical and /or mental space thatenables the process of conversion. ’Ba’ is a Japanese term, which literary means space orplace. The concept of ‘ba’ was originally proposed by Kitaro Nishida. The concept of ‘ba’concerns far more than physical elements, it includes perceptions throughout body and mind.Therefore ‘ba’ offers a context. In order to understand creativity as a tacit knowledge we cannotignore situated cognition and action. In knowledge creation, generation and regeneration of ‘ba’is the key, because ‘ba’ provides the energy, quality and location to perform the individualconversions and to move along the knowledge spiral. As cited in Muhadjir (1996), Glaser andStrauss suggest, in order achieving more optimal level of the new theory, the groundedresearch should be carried out in non traditional areas, where the place is limited references.Eisenhardt (1989) also says that this research approach is especially appropriate in new topicarea.

III. A.Data AnalysisMehmetoglu and Alinay (2006) comment, the focus on qualitative research has unfortunately

been mainly confined to methods of data collection and neglecting a more significant aspect,namely data analysis. The data analysis in a grounded theory as Glaser and Strauss’suggestions contains: Incidents of phenomena in data are coded into categories. By comparingeach incident with previous incidents in the same category, the researcher develops theoreticalproperties of categories and the dimensions of those properties. As the study progresses, thefocus changes from comparing incidents with one another to comparing incidents withproperties of the category that resulted from initial comparisons of incidents. The theoreticalsampling and constant comparison processes lead towards the theoretical saturation of a

8

reduced set categories within the boundaries of the emerging theory. Memos-records of ideasrelating to categories and the categories themselves form the basis of the written theory.Explored in different field settings and broader contexts, substantive theory may be developedinto more abstract, generalized formal theory (Partington (2007), Wignjosoebroto.S (2006). Indiscovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, andthen the evidence from which the category emerged is used to demonstrate the concept. Theevidence may not necessarily be accurate beyond doubt, but the concept is undoubtedly arelevant theoretical abstraction about what is going on in the area studied. Furthermore, theconcept itself will not change, while even the most accurate facts change (Glaser and Strauss,1967). Partington (2000) says the twin basics of grounded theory are theoretical sampling,whereby the process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, together withconstant comparison method of joint data coding and analysis.

As importance of coding issues, Awad and Ghaziri (2004) in their text book of KnowledgeManagement say codification isa prerequisite to knowledge transfer. From a knowledgemanagement view, codification is converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge in a usableform for organizational members. From an information system view, it is convertingundocumented to documented information. Regardless of the view, codification is making –specific knowledge (tacit and explicit) visible, accessible, and usable for value-added decisionmaking, no matter what form it may take. This means that:

a) Tacit knowledge (in people’ heads) such as human expertise is identified andleveraged through a form that delivers the highest return to the business. It may bethrough knowledge-sharing events, organized directories, yellow pages, or othermeans that will connect the ones who need the expertise to source of expertise.

b) Explicit knowledge should be organized, categorized, indexed, and accessed via thecompany’s intranet or some other means to make it visible, accessible and usable –on paper, in documents, in data base.

Codifying tacit knowledge is complex and is more of an art than a science. Several differentways of encoding facts and relationships to codify knowledge exist. They include knowledgemaps, decision tables, decision trees, frames, production rules and software agents (Awad andGhaziri, 2004). As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, there were some levels ofcodification in grounded theory, however more specifically described as cited in Mehmetogluand Altinay( 2006), Brown et al (2002) are as follows (a) Open coding as the process ofbreaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data. Data werebroken down by asking simple questions such as what, where, how, when, how much, etc. Datathat were initially broken down were then compared and similar incidents were grouped togetherand given the same conceptual label. This process of grouping concepts at a higher, moreabstract level is termed ‘categorizing’ ;(b) Axial coding is whereas open coding divides the datainto concepts and categories, axial coding puts them back together in new ways by makingconnections between a category and its subcategories. The focus of axial coding is to create amodel that details the specific conditions that give rise to a phenomenon’s occurrence. Duringaxial coding, the emerging categories, themes or pattern were validated by comparing theinformation with other informants, comparing the emerging themes with the information obtainedthrough observation and secondary analysis of documents from and about the organization. Wethen make a theoretical memo: a sort story which plays an important role and assists in theprocess of creating order and making sense of data. The process of open coding, axial codingand writing and developing memos lead to a number of finalized and saturated categories; (c)Selective coding is the next type of coding involved the integration of categories (axial) to forman initial theoretical framework. The codes and categories are explored further by revisiting thecoded statements, with attention being given to understanding the inter-relationship. All the datawere finally sifted and charted.

9

Mehmetoglu and Alinay (2006) summarize that the analytic strategy in practices of theGrounded Theory consisted of three concurrent stages / activities namely: Stage 1:familiarization, Stage 2: coding, conceptualization and ordering, and Stage 3: enfoldingliterature. Miles and Huberman (1994) also cited in Sugiyono (2007) summarize an interactivemodel for data analysis data as below:

Figure 5. An Interactive model for data analysis

III. B.Step by step in data analysisin GT (my experience)1. As all data are available (daily notes/observation, emails, film ,photos and other related

documents),I firstly selected instances of Stimulus and Actions to prepare transcription.I collected as much as possible of Stimulus and Actions from different sources of theavailable data.

2. As cited in Munir (2006), Strauss and Corbin say (1990) theories cannot be built withactual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that are from raw data. A theory isbuilt from concept, not directly from data. Concept is resulted from theconceptualization of data: The incidents, event, happenings are taken as, or analyzedas, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels.Therefore, from the transcription (Stimulus and Action), I made headings and categoriesin excel program of computer, we called it Open Coding. Open coding refers to that partof analysis which deals with labeling and categorizing of phenomena as indicated bydata. I also put code of number/sources, so it can be easily searched if needed. Datathat were initially broken down then compared and similar incidents were groupedtogether and given the same conceptual label. This process of grouping concept at ahigher, more abstract level is termed ‘categorizing’ (Dey,1998; Punch,1998 citedMehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004).The process of open coding to develop categories andproperties may be extended/ repeated when we find new ideas/values from rereadingprocess of transcription or finding new additional data. Categories is roughly equivalentto themes or variables and properties (in effect their subcategories). I managed it in keywords. To sump up, during open coding the process are: transcription (stimulus andaction)—Concept--heading—key words (category), so it will be simple.

3. When I processed the open coding, I might get expression of important categories andsimilarities. I copied the open coding data into other new spread sheet. I then came tophase of Axial Coding which puts those data back together in new ways with two steps:Step one was managing similar categories and Step two was making connectionsbetween a category and its subcategories.With cut and paste techniques, I processed

Data Collection Data Display

Data reductionConclusions:drawing/verifying

10

the Axial Coding as one by one until empty into the new spread sheet. During axialcoding, the emerging categories, themes or patterns were validated by (1)comparing theinformation with other informants, (2) comparing the emerging themes with theinformation obtained from through observation and review primary and secondarydocuments (3) checking validity of choice of themes with selected informants(Mehmetoglu and Altinay,2006). In addition, I think ,it must be based on true story of theprocess in the field. Axial coding is the process of relating codes (categories andproperties) to each other, via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking,grounded theorists emphasize causal relationship, and fit things into a basic frame ofgeneric relationship (Borgatti, accessed on 11/26/2009 and Munir,2006). From entireprocess of Axial Coding in the study, number of categories were made.

4. During copy and paste in excel spread sheet in order to grouping similar categories asmentioned above, the researcher got expression of frequency of categories and itsrelationship. In order to understand and test its comprehensive relationships in this axialcoding. I drew it with freehand in a large piece of paper .I tried making connectionsamong them of all important categories and subcategories focused for acognitiveprocess which offers a consensually valid and informative link between stimulus andaction.

5. From that process, I selected core categories or some related categories were mergedand made its links, we called it Selective Coding. This selective coding formed the initialtheoretical framework. Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) said after a time one category(occasionally more) will be found to emerge with high frequency of mention, and to beconnected to many of the other categories which a re emerging. This is a core category.It is hazardous to choose a core category too early in data collection. Furthermore, Munir(2006) explains researchers in Grounded Theory always try to find the dominant processfrom a social situation.

6.I then described its relationships in narrative /a story, we called it Memo. The corecategories which have been developed must be the sun, standing in orderly systematicrelationship to its planets (Strauss and Corbin cited in Pandit, 1996).Memo continues inparallel with data collection and coding. A memo is a note containshypothesis/propositions, and particularly about relationships between categories. Memoconsist of comments or thoughts on incidents and linkages were recorded initially assentences and as the analysis moved on they were updated and formulated as long asthe research still carried out. In time core category and the categories related havesaturated. By the time this happens, we will have accumulated a large number ofmemos. Experts of Grounded Theory such as Glaser, Strauss and Corbin as well BobDick placed that memoing are very important. I think original theory comes from memo.

7. Now, I have a new theory that can explain its relationship in a model of specific context;we called it Substantive /Emerging Theory.

8. However, if we improved the specific items and make it more general, lets we see, itmight become Formal Theory. I might compare the emerged theory with extant literatureand examine what is similar, what is different and why. Glaser and Strauss (accessed on7/20/2009) say it is often best to begin with generating substantive theory from data andthen let formal theory or revisions to existing formal theory emerge from substantivetheory. More studies generating substantive theory will ultimately generate and improveformal theory.

9. Formulating theoretical propositions

11

IV. Validation of the theoryGlaser and Strauss (1967, accessed on 7/20/2009) say a good practical ground theory should

have some characteristics namely fit the substantive area it will be used in, understandable bylaymen in that area, general enough to apply to many situations in the area and allow the usersome control over the theory as the daily situation change over time. In addition, Glasersuggests validity in its traditional sense is consequently not an issue in GT, which insteadshould be judged by fit, relevance, workability and modifiability (Glaser, accessed on7/20/2009).Albert Einstein (Wikipedia, accessed on 6/17/2009) puts “The supreme goal of alltheory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible withouthaving to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”. Partington(2000) suggests following mode 2 principles, one of the main features of the study wasinvolvement of informants in the validation and application of its findings. Here, S-O-Rparadigm model by Partington to validate to informants whether theory is relevant to thereal phenomena and is applicable to the world of management as presented below:

Table 2. Validation of theory based S-O-R ParadigmNo Elements Confirmation of Informants

Management Action Use External Agents of Change Yes/No explain Planning and control formality Yes/No Control of the pace of change Yes/No Staff participation in decisions Yes/No Justification of actions Yes/No Definition of individuals’ roles Yes/No

Cognition Autonomy Yes/No Resources Yes/No Self-efficacy Yes/No Opportunity Yes/No The expected cooperation of staff Yes/No

Environmental stimulus Public…..OWNERSHIP…..Private Yes/No Traditional…SELF-IMAGE….Modern Yes/No Member….GROUP MEMBERSHIP. Independent Yes/No/not obvious Isomorphic…CONFIRMITY….Differentiating Yes Stable…HISTORY…Threatened Yes/No, I prefer to HISTORY-

using term benefit , instead ofthreatened

Project…ORIENTATION….Process Yes/No High….TECHNICAL EXPERTISE….Low Yes/No

V. Working out problems in doing Grounded TheoryThere is an assumption that Grounded Approach is difficult and could be only better

employed by team of researchers or by a more experienced researcher who could dealt with thecomplexities and contradictions of this approach (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004). Munir cited inSalim ( 2006) says Grounded Method needs the qualified researchers who have high flyinghours, self confidence, creativeness and experience, and this is more likely not found in theyoung researcher. Since its analytical model is continuous as long as field data is beingcollected, GT is not easy for the beginners. However, I feel, this issue is not all true, it actuallycan be improved if the researcher really involves in the field study, using modified approachsuch as Mode 2, correspondence with Grounded Researcher who have experience and last but

12

not least perseverance and want to experiment. With this opportunity, I would shareexperience in working out problems in doing Grounded Theory Method, as follows:

1. The first critical question came to me, was the theory which I developed really GroundedTheory? Bungin (2007) in a provocative way says that researcher comes into the fieldwith “empty headed” or without bringing any concept, theory or hypothesis. It is indeedreal phenomenon of what occurs in the situation. As cited in Dick (accessed on8/19/2002) Glaser recommends reading widely while avoiding the literature most closelyrelated to what we are researching. His fear, our reading may otherwise constrain ourcoding and memoing. Dick’s own view, however, is that it makes sense to accessrelevant literature as it becomes relevant and part of the data collection procedures.Reading references is less an issue for Glaser. “An effective strategy is, at first, literallyto ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study, in order to assure thatthe emergence of categories will not be contaminated by concepts more suite to differentareas” cited in Glaser and Strauss (accessed on 7/20/2009). Altinay and Mehmetoglu(2006) place the enfolding literature is stage 3 or the last stage of analysis procedures ofGrounded Theory in order to asking what it was similar to, what did it contradict and why.On the contrary, Kuhn, 1962 and Feyerabend, 1962 cited in Crompton (accessed on3/25/2009) observations are not entirely free from the influences of theories. Except aframework of the study, I took time in this study and did not have to jump into conclusionso quick and let the data spoke for itself, and then the meanings would emerge.Partington (2000) says that the transdiciplinary nature of mode 2 research means thatpre-existing theoretical frameworks are likely to be fragmented or rudimentary. With thegrounded theory approach this is not a disadvantage, since the purpose of the approachis to build new theories from data in context. Mode 2 research is often aimed atcapturing tacit knowledge. The retrospective, reflexive accounts of managers and otherorganizational actors will be an important source of this knowledge. One of keyquotations of Deming (Wikipedia, accessed on 6/12/2009) is “ The most importantthings are unknown or unknowable”, analogous to earthquake that disrupts service,other “earth-shattering” events that most affect an organization will be unknown orunknowable, in advance. During the time of data collection and process of analysis, Iread relevant references and supporting documents (literature as data) and lets thestudy flowed. Since I got the draft of the theory, I finally searched more deeplyreferences particularly references ofcritics of the existing /related theory that I wouldproduce. So this way would not so much hinder my genuine concept. In addition, Iagree, GT should be better selected as a method only for something which not so muchclear or need to find new perceptions (Stern,1994 cited in Munir, 2006). Glaser andStrauss cited in in Muhadjir (1996) suggest, in order achieving more optimal level of thenew theory, the grounded research should be carried out in non traditional areas, wherethe place is limited references. This approach is especially appropriate in new topic area(Eisenhardt,1989).

2. Methodology applied this study was Grounded Theory of mode 2 which paid attention ofbalance between theory and practice in management. Mode 2 was clearly described theimportance of involvement of participants and researcher through multidisciplinaryapproaches. However, the combination of learning from informants and interpretation ofresearcher did not follow the “Hermeneutics principles by Giddens” for the qualitativeapproach as usual. Giddens says we learned from informants (emic perspectives)through the first order understanding and the second order understanding (Sanapiah inBungin 2003). I think, interpretations through informants who had various backgroundsand through researcher were considered as advantage and mutually strengthened. Onecore method of GT by Glaser is constant comparisons that come from various data, soobservation, interview and review documents must be synergy. As Takeuchi (1998) says

13

Tacit knowledge, concerned by Mode 2, is deeply rooted in an individual’s action andexperience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces. Sociologistsuch as Mead and Blumer with their theories of symbolic interaction emphasized effectof meaning and symbols towards action and human interactions (Ritzer and Goodman,2003). It means interpretation of data do not solely find from interviews but fromobservation and understanding of the researcher towards the social situation. GroundedTheory needs good rapport of researcher so the researcher can take as much aspossible information. In this study, the researcher worked as mediator/coordinator ofCSR program in the study so it was very possible. In addition, Thus, this issue should benot a problem or contradiction.

3. Overall, one of difficult parts of doing Grounded Theory that I felt was preparationincluding selecting, rewriting transcription from different sources of data. This spent alot of time for me like “long journey” especially needed language translation. In contrast,when I came in the phase of analysis particularly Selective Coding, the theory arosemore quickly than I imagined, Glaser calls “drugless trip” (Dick, accessed 8/19/2002). Ifound such situation was really exciting and encouraging. I could express what wasreally happening in the situation. There was a feeling of freedom, autonomy and licenseto write (Glaser,2002). To repeat GT principles by Glaser, it is obvious for those whoimplement Grounded research should have some capabilities namely note taking(grasping key issues), theoretical sampling (working with diversity of samples),triangulation (constant comparison) and the most important is theoretical sensitivitywhere researcher is able to get sort of key words/ideas from the data and perceive asvariables and its relationship. It is the most creative job.

4. Issue of saturation is found in GT. Green and Thorogood (2004) comment that GT isperhaps one of the most abused phrases in qualitative study. Increasingly, researchersare making claims to have used a GT approach in what emerges as rather superficialthematic content analysis. An analysis that has used GT should provide a detailed,saturated account of data, rather than a list of key themes. Pandit (1996) the process ofdeveloping the grounded theory is Theoretical Sampling (1)---Data collections(2)---Dataordering(3)---Data Analysis(4)--- theory development (5)---if theory saturation the studyfinished (6) and if not saturation the study continued. From experience, I felt saturationin the three situations; firstly I collected data from time to time when I felt that variousdata (primary and secondary data) were enough, I then stopped it. Secondly duringprocess of open coding, similar headings have many times come up and the kind ofheadings/categories become limited and limited, I stopped the process of open coding.Thirdly, during the process of axial coding and selective coding, I made relationshipamong categories and subcategories (properties) or among core categories and itscategories. I felt diminishing returns when no more/enough relationship produced; Istopped the process. Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) says in collecting and interpretingdata about a particular category, in time you reach a point of diminishing returns issaturation. It must be noted the collection of data is a continuous process andsimultaneous. Yet you have already processed data analysis, you get other additionalinformation/data you should include and process it again.

5. Mode 2, of course, is simpler and shorter than traditional GT approach. I think Mode 2 issignificantly different if compared Mode 1 (traditional GT) in few things such aspreparation of data (collecting and selecting data focused on Stimulus and Actions),process of axial coding and using retrospective data as well as involvement manyinformants in developing knowledge . Mode 2 overcomes the complexities of GT.

6. My research experience in doctorate of management science, although Creswell andClark (2007) gave examples of Embedded Design where a research embed qualitativedata within a quantitative methodology, as might be done in an experimental design or

14

quantitative data could be embedded within a qualitative methodology as could be donein a phenomenology design, however in this case I could not play the mixed methodswith embedded Grounded Theory and Experimental Model to describe each otherduring the DataAnalysis in the Results Chapter except in the Discussion because theobjective of this qualitative method was to build a theory. I therefore had to finishanalyzing qualitative method firstly and then analyzing quantitative method secondly.However, I believe as my experiance, respectively the quantitative results of pre andpost experimental intervention as well as additional data such ashealth statistic ofworkplace, and Malcolm Baldrige score card played a supplemental role within theoverall design namely supported strengthened , triangulated and qualified the mainqualitative analysis in order to build a theory finally.

REFERENCES

Awad,E.M ., and Ghaziri,H.M .2004. Knowledge Management, International Edition,PearsonEducation International, pp 186-211.

Borgatti , S. Introduction to Grounded Theory. http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm,accessed on 11/26/2009/

Brown, S. C., Stevens ,R.A., Troiano, P.F., Schneider, M.K. 2002.Exploring Complex Phenomena:Grounded Theory in Student Affairs Research,Journal of College Student Development, vol 43: 2.

Bungin, H.M. 2007. Penelitian Kualitatif:Komunikasi,Ekonomi,Kebijakan Publik dan Ilmu SosialLainnya, Edisi 1,Pranada Media Group Kencana, pp 217-218.

Chopra,S. Dictionary of Management,K.S.Papersbacks, New Delhi,2005, pp 66,364.Creswell ,J. W. 1994. Research Design –Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications,

pp.95-96.Creswell ,J.W and Plano Clark ,V.L. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage

Publications, pp 7, 32,67,68.Crompton ,H. Knowledge Production and Management in the 21st Century, Manchester Metropolitan

University Business School Working Paper Series,http//www.google.com, accessed on 3/25/2009.Dick. B. Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch, Resource papers in action

research,http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html, accessed on 8/19/2002.Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management

Review,vol 14,No 4,p 532.Emzir. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan –Kuantitatif & Kualitatif, PT RajaGrafindo, p.200.Encyclopaedia Britanica,2008.Encyclopedia Britanica Library- Advance Level content for older

students and adults, The Britanica Sofware.Faisal,S .2007. Penelitian Tiori Grounded,sebagai Alternatif model analisis dalam studi-studi kualitatif

in Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif,Bungin (Ed), PT RajaGrafindo Persada, pp 119-130.Gioia,D.A and Pitre,E. 1990. Multiparadigma Perspectives on Theory Building,Academy of

Management Review, Vol15 No 4 pp 584-602.Glaser ,B.G. 2002. Constructivist Grounded Theory, Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol 3, no.3, p.

1,http://www.cuhp.org/admin/EditDocStore/ws4%, accessed on 09/26/2008.Glaser.,B.G. 2002. Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2).Article 3. http://www.ualberta.ca/-ijqm/, accessed on1/3/2009.Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:, Strategies for Qualitative

Research, Sociology Press, California, p 23.Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative

Research, Aldine Publishing Company Chicago (summary) http://www.groundedtheory.com,accessed on 7/20/2009.

Glaser,Grounded theory (Glaser)-Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia, http://www.grounded theory.com,accessed on 7/20/2009

Green,J and Thorogood,N. 2004. Qualitative Methods for Health Research, Sage Publication,London,pp 176-199.

15

Human Resource Development Review.2005. Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory, vol 4, no.2,111-113, http://www.google.com,accessed on 17 June 2009

Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior, Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill,New York, 2002, pp.20-27.Mehmetoglu,M. and Alinay, L.2006. Examination of Grounded Theory Analysis with an Application to

Hospitality Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management 25(2006) pp 12-13.Mereli ,Y. and McGee .1998. Information Competence and Knowledge Creation at the Corporate

Centre in Strategic Flexibility : Managing in a Turbulent Environment, Hamel G,PrahaladCK,Thomas H and O’Neal D(Editors), John Wiley & Sons,Chichester,England,pp.213-214.

Miles,M.B. and Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, Sage publications, p12.Moleong, L. J. 2008. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, PT Remaja Rosdakarya, Bandung, p 74.Muhadjir, H.N. 1996.Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif(Edisi III), Rakesarasin,Yogyakarta,pp 88-89.Munir,N.S.T. 2006. Grounded Theory in Teori dan Paradigma Penelitian Sosial (Salim,A) ,Edisi

Kedua, Tiara Wacana,Yogyakarta,pp 176-197.Neuman,W.L .2003. Social Research Methods:Qualitative and Quantitative Aprroaches, 5th edition,

Allyn and Bacon,Boston, pp 52, 146.New Webster’s Dictionary and Roget’s Thesaurus .1992.,Ottenheimer Publishers Inc, USA, pp

85,87,247,283,387.Pandit, N.R. 1996. The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the Grounded Theory Method, The

Qualitative Report,Volume 2, Number 4, http;//www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR2-4/pandit.html.Partington, D. 2000. Building Grounded Theories of Management Action, British Journal of

Management, Vol.11, pp 91-102.Pongtiku, A.2010.Corporate Social Responsibility during Gas Exploration Phase: A Competitive

Stakeholder Theory, Dissertation ,Doctorate in Management Science, University of Brawijaya.Raimond, P. 1998.Where Do Strategic Ideas Come from? in Strategic Flexibility : Managing in a

Turbulent Environment, Hamel G,Prahalad CK,Thomas H and O’Neal D(Editors), John Wiley &Sons,Chichester,England,pp 235-246.

Ritzer,G. and Goodman,D.J. 2007. Teori Sosiologi Modern (translation),6th edition, Kencana,Jakarta,pp 289-294, 506-520.

Salladien.2008. Memahami Research Questions,Focus,Tiori, Paradigma, Analisis Data dan ExistingModels dalam Terapan Penelitian Kualitatif ( termasuk supplemen bahan presentasi) disajikanpada Workshop Metodologi dan Tindak Lanjut Penelitian (Action Plan) Bagi Dosen Cangkok diPPS Universitas Brawijaya.

Sugiyono. 2007. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif, CV Alfabeta Bandung, pp 92,137,183.Sugiyono .2008. Metode Penelitian Bisnis,CV Alfabeta Bandung, pp 430-432.Svensson,L., Ellström, P.E.,Brulin, G . 2009.Organizing interactive research in a Triple Helix context-a

Mode III perspective (Paper presented at the HSS09 Confrence in Luleå,June 2009),http://www.google.com, accessed on 18/07/2009

Wibowo ,T.H. 2005. The emergence of Papuan Tribal Governance: A case study of societalknowledge creation (PhD dissertation), http://www.google.com, accessed on 1/20/2008.

Wignjosoebroto,S .2006. Grounded Research: Apa dan Bagaimana in Metode Peneltian Sosial,Berbagai Alternatif Pendekatan (Bagong Suyanto, Sutinah (Ed)), pp 191-195.

Wikipedia. Axiology , http://www.en.wikipedia.org,accessed on 1/19/2010Wikipedia. Value Theory, http://www.en.wikipedia.org,accessed on 1/19/2010Takeuchi,H. 1998. Beyond Knowledge Management: Lessons from Japan,

http://www.sveiby.com.au/LessonsJapan.htm.

Acknowledgments:I dedicate this paper for my teacher,Prof.Dr. Salladien (University of Malang)who passed away in 2011,who ever guided me Mixed Methods and had excellent lectures of Qualitative Approach. Big Leung,PhD(RMIT University,Melbourne-Australia) who firstly introduced me a Grounded Theory. My sincere thanksgo to Prof.Dr.Djumilah Zain,SE,:Prof.Armanu Thoyib,SE.,M.Sc,Ph.D and Dr.Mintarti Rahayu,SE.,MS(Brawijaya University) for most valuable supports as my promoter and co promoters during Study inDoctorate in Management Science.