Vassili Joannides

Reactions to Reading 'Remaining Consistent with Method? An Analysis of Grounded Theory Research in Accounting': A Comment on Gurd

Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.

Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”

Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.

Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? : A comment on Gurd

Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.Purpose: The present paper is a comment on Gurd’s paper published in QRAM on the use of grounded theory in interpretive accounting research. Methodology: Like Gurd, we conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings: We found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, we arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations: In our research, we did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. We took for granted that they had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method. Practical implications: The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his own techniques and procedures. Originality/Value of the paper: This paper stimulates debates on grounded theory based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.