IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”: A comment on Gurd

  • Vassili Joannidès
  • Nicolas Berland

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

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1176-6093&volume=5&issue=3&articleid=1751821&show=abstract
Download Restriction: Cannot be freely downloaded

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Emerald Group Publishing in its journal Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management.

Volume (Year): 5 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 253-261

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:5:y:2008:i:3:p:253-261
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:


References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Ahrens, Thomas, 1996. "Styles of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(2-3), pages 139-173.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Ahrens, T., 1996. "Styles of Accountability," Papers 96-119, University of Southampton - Department of Accounting and Management Science.
  6. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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 you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.