Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”: A comment on Gurd
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”, a paper by Gurd. Design/methodology/approach – Like Gurd, the authors conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory. Findings – The authors 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, the authors arrived at different conclusions. Research limitations/implications – In our research, the authors did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. The authors took for granted that the article authors 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 or her own techniques and procedures. Originality/value – This paper stimulates debate 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
Volume (Year): 5 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com|
|Order Information:|| Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK|
Web: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=qram Email:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ali M. Elharidy & Brian Nicholson & Robert W. Scapens, 2008. "Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 139-155, July.
- Ahrens, Thomas, 1996. "Styles of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 139-173.
- Andrew Goddard & Mussa Juma Assad, 2006. "Accounting and navigating legitimacy in Tanzanian NGOs," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(3), pages 377-404, April.
- Efferin, Sujoko & Hopper, Trevor, 2007. "Management control, culture and ethnicity in a Chinese Indonesian company," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 223-262, April.
- Ahrens, T., 1996. "Styles of Accountability," Papers 96-119, University of Southampton - Department of Accounting and Management Science.
- Jill Frances Solomon & Aris Solomon, 2006. "Private social, ethical and environmental disclosure," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 19(4), pages 564-591, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:5:y:2008:i:3:p:253-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Louise Lister)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.