The Grounded Theory Method: Field Work, Analysis, and Reaching Results

Markus M. Mäkelä Helsinki University of Technology

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we continue the discussion on building grounded theory from case studies in the domain of entrepreneurship, an effort we started in a companion paper (Mäkelä and Turcan, 2004). We discuss procedures of field work and data analysis, linking observations from the data and the emerging theoretical framework with prior literature, and formulating propositions as embodiments of the findings. We introduce an analysis of a set of recent top-tier entrepreneurship articles that illustrate the uses of the method under varying circumstances.

Keywords: grounded theory method, entrepreneurship research, field work, analysis, results

2

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we build on a companion paper (Mäkelä and Turcan, 2004),

referred to throughout this paper. We carry on our discussion on building grounded

theory from case studies in the domain of entrepreneurship. We start by discussing

work at the field. We also review data analysis, linking observations from the data and

the emerging theoretical framework with prior literature, and thereafter the

formulation of propositions that transparently and vividly articulate the findings.

Throughout the paper, we continue our custom from the companion paper,

discussing the conduct of the research phases in recent entrepreneurship articles that

have employed the grounded theory or a similar method. In an Appendix of this

paper, we detail how we selected a set of eight such papers for illustrative purposes

and how we analyzed these papers. The Appendix introduces a table by which we

seek to illustrate the many faces of the method in publications of top-tier international

outlets. By presenting the table, we also hope to make it easy to compare authors’

choices and decisions across papers and to gain a holistic view of these exemplar

papers.

DATA COLLECTION

In this section, we review general requirements for a field investigator, sources

of evidence and methods for data collection, conducting a pilot study, and making use

of overlap between data collection and analysis.

3

Requirements for the Field Investigator

There are a number of requirements for the field researcher. Prior to entering

the field, a researcher must be cognizant of the various types of data and how they can

be employed to achieve the benefits of triangulation. While in the field, she must also

be able to independently act according to the situation, making decisions about the

data being collected so as to maximize the quality of the study (Yin, 1994). She needs

to recognize places where thorough questions are warranted to enable the study to dig

deeper into issues that are of interest. That is, she needs to be adaptive to the situation

and flexible to the requirements – such as schedule –of informants, and a good

listener (Yin, 1994).

Importantly, the researcher has to bear the initial setup of the study – prior

literature, the research problem, and the potential a priori constructs – clear in mind.

She typically also needs to know a lot about the studied case or other environment in

advance, if material has been available. In many empirical settings, there is public

material about the object of study and its history, such as news items and www sites

of organizations. It is often beneficial to be able to show in an interview situation that

one masters public knowledge so that interviewees do not feel that their time would

be inefficiently used. While the investigator should have a sound grasp of information

about the case and its surroundings, she should be free of bias, not seeking to

substantiate a preconceived view of study results (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994;

Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Sources of Evidence and Data Collection Methods

Yin (1994) presented a thorough description of potential sources of evidence

in case studies (see also Brundin, 2004). Key sources, a part of which can also be

4

conceived as data collection methods, are interviews, documents, observations, and

physical artifacts1. Depending on the definition of the above elements, however, not

all sources of a more exotic nature may be covered by the list, such as videotapes,

psychological testing, or life histories (Yin, 1994; Smith, 1994). All sources of data

collection used in a study should be separately mastered by the researcher.

Yin (1994, p. 80) presented a vivid tabular illustration of the strengths and

weaknesses of the sources of evidence, pointing out that no one of them is superior

with a complete advantage over the others. Strengths of interviews include that they

can potentially be effectively targeted to suitable informants, and allow the researcher

dwell into theoretically interesting topics that provide added insight. Weaknesses

include that poorly constructed questions, the purposeful conduct of informants, or

poor recall of prior events can bring about response bias. For instance, interviewees

may be reluctant to reveal worse aspects of their or their organization’s history and

may even dress up what happened – a behavior that scholars sometimes term ‘post

hoc rationalization.’ The informant may also be biased to provide such answers that

he believes the interviewer wants to obtain.

Benefits of documentation include that it can be repeatedly reviewed, is

unobtrusive in that it has not been created in the course of the study, and provides

exact and potentially broad coverage of the states of nature. On the downside, access

to such data, retrievability may be low, and different types of biases may be present.

1 Yin presented a more detailed division describing (1) documents and (2) archival records where we aggregate these under the label of ‘documents’. By archival records, Yin referred to documents that are held in archive-like storages, and stated that the usefulness of such archival records varies much more from study to study than that of documentary evidence.

Moreover, Yin distinguished between (1) direct observations and (2) ‘participant-observation.’ Direct observation refers to observation-making in general, while participant-observation was identified as a special mode in which the researcher may assume a variety of roles within the study situation and may participate herself in the events being studied. Participation, implying the key ingredient of ‘participatory action research’ (Gummesson, 1991; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000), is (already by definition) the key attribute separating participant-observation from other observational data collection.

5

Upsides in using observations include that they are highly contextual,

covering events in real time. If observations are made in a ‘participant-observation’

mode, where the researcher actively participates events that relate to the study, she

may gain thorough insights into interpersonal behavior and motives of action.

Weaknesses of observation include that the may be time-consuming if conducted in a

large scheme, and negative selectivity may be involved. Furthermore, analogically to

interviews, things may proceed as they do because they are being monitored,

exhibiting reflexivity. Reflexivity can also be brought about by the researcher’s own

manipulation of events when the observation is participatory. Finally, physical

artifacts include objects such as a device or a computer printout in a study of

microcomputer use (see Yin, 1994, p. 90). According to Yin (1994), they have less of

potential relevance in a typical case study. Artifacts can provide insights into, for

instance, cultural and technological features, questions, and operations. Downsides

include availability and selectivity.

Triangulation, as discussed in the companion paper, is an important issue and

tool in qualitative research (Huberman and Miles, 1994; Altheide and Johnson, 1994),

many aspects of which closely pertain to the fieldwork phase and data collection as an

important area of manifestation of its benefits (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994).

Triangulation refers to the combination of multiple methods, empirical materials,

observers, or perspectives in a single study. The use of triangulation is an attempt to

obtain a deep understanding of the studied phenomenon that may also add rigor and

breath (Jick, 1979; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Triangulation does not represent a

form of validation but is an alternative to validation (Flick, 1992; Denzin and Lincoln,

1994). In all grounded theory research, triangulation provides important means to

reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation, and thus its use is generally recommended.

6

In top grounded theory research, interviews and documents are typically used

as sources of evidence. It is, in fact, rather rare not to use interviews, but such studies

naturally are possible (see, for instance, Amit and Zott, 2001). We also think that

documentary and observational evidence are in reality used in many papers that do

not explicitly acknowledge their use but just state that they use interviews.

Pilot Study

A pilot study may be a very helpful means of guiding data collection – as well

as analysis – to the appropriate direction. Such investigation can pivotally help avoid

costly pitfalls by letting researchers reformat their research protocol so that empirical

findings can have their share in the important design of grounded theory research.

Both the content of data and procedures of investigation may be revised.

A limited number of cases should be selected for the pilot study, and just one

case can provide important insight into the phenomena at hand. The selection of the

pilot case may follow different criteria than the selection of the actual research cases,

because one may, for instance, find a case where informants or documents are

unusually accessible, or the geographical location is more convenient (e.g. Yin, 1994).

Yin (1994, p. 74) succinctly emphasized that a pilot study is not a ‘pretest’ in

that it should not attempt to actually start the process of generating theory, but just

help to develop suitable lines of questions, potentially clarifying the essence of the

study to the researchers as well. The pilot study can even be a much broader than the

ultimate data collection scheme and can entail much less focus. It can help design

both methodological and substantive issues (Yin, 1994).

One will note that while a pilot study is not a ‘prestudy,’ its benefits still can

occur also in the process of adjusting data collection and analysis in course or

7

research, a key ingredient of grounded theory inquiry that is discussed in the

following subsection. However, due to availability of resources, a separate pilot study

does naturally stand the best chances of obtaining significant benefits.

Entrepreneurship studies that we analyzed poorly stand up to their label of

‘exemplars’ in that the use of pilot study is rare in them. According to our subjective

observations from the review of more than 200 entrepreneurship articles that

employed grounded theory or a similar method, the analyzed papers would appear to

relatively well represent the population of entrepreneurship grounded theory articles

in top scholarly outlets. Only two of the exemplar papers have elements of a pilot

study visible: Uzzi (1997) used two pilot interviews and Amit and Zott (2001)

reported that they changed their questionnaire some time after the beginning of data

collection.

Overlap of the Collection and Analysis of Data

Generally, an important feature of many qualitative research efforts is that the

data collection and analysis phases should overlap to enable refocusing the study and

conducting appropriate theoretical sampling of cases and within cases in the course of

research. Interview templates and questionnaires can also be amended (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967; Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Such freedom to adjust

the working protocol is considered an important advantage of case research

(Eisenhardt, 1989), representing ‘controlled opportunism in which researchers take

advantage of the uniqueness of a specific case and the emergence of new themes to

improve resultant theory’ (p. 539). Such opportunism is legitimate because the

researcher is attempting to understand each case separately in extensive depth

8

(Eisenhardt, 1989). An addition benefit of overlap is that it also gives the investigator

a head start in the laborious task of analyzing data.

Field notes are a central tool for the field researcher. Eisenhardt (1989)

discussed field notes as an important means of achieving overlap between data

collection and analysis. At best, they can be an account of both what happened and

how the researcher herself reflected on that on the spot, representing not only

observation but also analysis, with these two aspects preferably separated. They can

thus provide a ‘stream-of-consciousness’ commentary about events of the study (Van

Maanen, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989). Ideas recorded in field notes competitive advantage

be, for example, hunches about causal relationships, informal observations, anecdotes,

or cross-case comparisons.

We now proceed to review the phase of research that overlaps data collection.

DATA ANALYSIS

A variety of types of qualitative data analysis has been suggested in the

literature. For instance, Yin (1994) advocated ‘pattern-matching,’ ‘explanation-

building,’ ‘time-series analysis,’ and ‘program-logic models’ with a few ‘lesser

modes’ of analysis. Miles and Huberman (1994) presented a large set of display

vehicles for data analysis, such as arrays, flowcharts, timelines, matrices, and

frequency tabulations.

Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) advocated a rather prescriptive set of strict

coding methods that are likely to offer good support for new researchers but at the

same time were argued to lose the sense of emergence and open-ended character and

represent too complex a ‘maze of techniques’ (Charmaz, 2000). The presentation of

their methods of ‘open, axial, and selective coding’ in their 1998 work was perceived

9

as an improved and more accessible version by Charmaz (2000). Glaser (1992)

viewed their 1990 work as ‘forcing’ researchers through too strict and binding a set of

procedures for allowing emergence. Glaser maintained that analysis should be just

about iterative and constant comparisons.

In their analysis, different authors typically use a limited number of methods

that are selected from a larger pool, even though many methods have different names

for different authors. For instance, components of Yin’s methods that were listed

above are present in the work of Eisenhardt (1989), Miles and Huberman (1994), and

Strauss and Corbin (1998) with partly different labels.

Qualitative analysis in grounded theory attempts to conceptualize, reduce,

elaborate, and relate data and categories to integrate them as novel theory. While

various qualitative analysis methods are introduced in detail in the various works

discussed above, we concentrate on one of the often-used types of data analysis. Our

selection is the account of Eisenhardt (1989) that discusses analysis as divided into

the within-case and cross-case phases. In this discussion, we wish to avoid the ‘maze

of techniques’ (Charmaz, 2000) of the more prescriptive approach of Strauss and

Corbin (1990; 1998).

Regarding the ‘Methods’ sections of papers, Eisenhardt (1989) noted the same

pattern in papers of the 1980s that are apparent in those from 1996-2003 that were

reviewed by us for the analysis of the Appendix: papers generally give very little

space for describing analysis. According to the papers’ short descriptions, papers have

much variation in how much their authors have done for the analysis, and there seems

to be a degree of confusion that attests to the view that the process quality in the

production of grounded theory has much variation even in these high-level

publication outlets.

10

Still, it is important for reliability of the study and for readers of qualitative

research to know how the analysis was conducted. Good exemplars can be found in

Eisenhardt’s own studies that provide the reader with deep information about the

research setting, data collection, and analysis (e.g. Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), with

often a few pages allocated for these issues.

In the following, we first review within-case analysis and then its companion

for multiple-case research, cross-case analysis. Our review is based on Eisenhardt’s

(1989) presentation.

Conduct of the Analysis

Within-case analysis is an important help for qualitative researchers as they

are trying to cope with a staggering volume of data. There is no standard format for a

within-case analysis, but a typical procedure in deeply studying one case includes a

write-up of the case or a thorough examination of the events on the timeline. The

write-ups and timelines may be purely descriptive. Even description can be important

for generating insight. All sources of evidence that are in use in the study should be

well exploited. The key objective is to reach a state of intimate familiarity with the

states of events in each case separately. Such familiarity and knowledge of the unique

aspects of each case can facilitate a successful cross-case analysis.

As discussed in the companion paper, a multiple case study often is the

appropriate structure for a grounded theory setting, because the only appropriate

single case design for grounded theory research is that of an extreme or unique case

(see Yin, 1994). For multiple case studies, cross-case investigation is a critical phase

in analysis. Its ideas can, however, be applied in some analysis work in the level of

comparing embedded units in the sublevel of a single case.

11

Eisenhardt (1989) vividly points out that a rigorous cross-case analysis is

important because people are poor processors of information; they are overly affected

by some findings from data, by status of some informants, and may inadvertently

ignore disconfirming evidence. In cross-case analysis, the data should be scrutinized

from several viewpoints. This will counteract the weaknesses of people in processing

information. Eisenhardt’s articulation of typical qualitative cross-case analysis

vehicles materialized in a threefold classification: clustering of categories and

dimensions, identification of similarities and differences between pairs of cases, and

dividing data according to the source of evidence.

In the first method, conceptual categories or dimensions are selected and then

grouped for identifying intragroup similarities and intergroup differences. The

selection of the categories or dimensions should be based on the research problem or a

review of the data that could be called ‘open coding,’ that is, the identification of

concepts and their properties from the data. If categories are selected from existing

literature, the researcher will have to be especially vary about not letting prior

knowledge guide the analysis to counterwork the spirit of grounded theory.

Continuous scales can be used in plotting the positions of cases or their subunits. In

many cases, a useful extension of clustering dimensions is to use a multidimensional

display (for instance, a two-dimensional matrix for representation of two dimensions

or multiple two-dimensional matrices for representation of three dimensions).

The second vehicle of comparing pairs of cases enables investigators to find

insights beyond simplistic constructs and relationships. The search of similarities

from seemingly different cases or differences from seemingly similar ones can bring

about sophisticated insights, and new dimensions and concepts may emerge. More

than two cases can naturally be grouped in the use of this tool.

12

The third tool is to cluster data according to the source of evidence.

Sometimes, different sources such as interviews, observations, and documents

facilitate different insights, and a type of triangulation of data source can be made use

of here to produce deep insights and help increase the quality of the study. If results of

the analysis conflict, they can at times be reconciled so that a form of ‘literal

replication’ or ‘theoretical replication’ (see the companion paper) is achieved. ‘Literal

replication’ can be achieved if the results show similar results and ‘theoretical

replication’ if there is a credible reason that accounts for the difference. When such

replication cannot be established, the analysis has helped identify a spurious

relationship.

The general objective in cross-case analysis is to analytically and procedurally

seek insights from beyond initial expressions and potential delusions that are often

inherent in human thought. The use of diverse tools in the task can bring about

increased quality and corroboration of the resultant theory’s fit with data.

A very important part of analysis is to know when the iteration can be stopped.

This meticulous interplay between the three components (Strauss and Corbin, 1994)

demands much resources and researchers should not overdo it, because other things

being equal, this will work to reduce their attention to the quality of analysis. At some

point in time, there is saturation in the emerging propositions so that further iteration

would be unlikely to provide significant incremental learning of new aspects of the

framework (Eisenhardt, 1989). Similarly, in the earlier-phase issue of case sampling,

adding cases should be stopped when there is saturation. One should be cognizant,

however, of the fact that the identification of saturation can be difficult in adding

cases and, indeed, even in knowing when there is saturation to the results.

13

IDENTIFYING CONNECTIONS WITH LITERATURE AND

FORMULATING PROPOSITIONS

Analysis and even data collection are bound to the phases of identifying

connections to prior literature and formulating propositions; the two last phases also

significantly overlap each other. Concepts and relationships between them have begun

to emerge while analysis has progressed, and the researcher can move on to

sharpening constructs and the model. We base our introduction on identifying

literature links and formulating propositions mainly on Eisenhardt’s (1989) work.

In regard to the formulation of propositions, we review Eisenhardt’s

suggestions of modifying and sharpening constructs and verifying fit. ‘Sharpening of

constructs’ refers to making needed revisions to the definition of a construct and

gathering and reviewing evidence for measuring that construct. In other words, it can

be viewed as establishing construct validity. Making constant comparisons in an

iterative fashion is once again the key. The accumulation of evidence from multiple

sources provides support for the construct. Eisenhardt specifically points out the

similarity of developing a construct from several types of evidence to the

development of a single measure from multiple indicators in theory-testing research.

While no method for collapsing multiple indicators, such as factor analysis, is

available, the researcher will have to rely on the stringent iteration inherent to

grounded theory building. Tabular displays (e.g. Miles and Huberman, 1994) are of

key use in this collapsing, reducing, or summarizing of data.

Tables can support the presentation of constructs and findings generally in

important ways, because they offer the author a way to condense the major

components of their results in an easily-accessible form. Perhaps more importantly,

tables can offer a way to condense the support of the data for the emerging framework

14

of propositions, showing the reader how causal dynamics operate in the data when

values of key factors are varied. One example of a useful practice is to describe

detailed findings from the cases in separate tables for each construct of the emerging

model, and then condense the case data to a summarizing attribute and present these

summary attributes for all constructs in a summary table. Such variance-

representation table will draw together the support from the data for the model and

allow the reader to quickly grasp it.

The discussion on variance-representation tables is important for multiple-case

studies that make use of the replication logic, but may also be exploited in the study

of dynamics within a single case. Tabular displays are also oftentimes useful in

describing the interview set or other data: how many informants were there in the

cases, what were their positions and backgrounds, which documentation was obtained

of the cases, when were steps of data collection performed, et cetera. Likewise, tables

can effectively be used in describing the history or present condition of the cases.

Good examples of the use of tables can be found in the work of, for instance,

Eisenhardt (Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, III, 1988; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), and in

qualitative research on entrepreneurship and related topics (Birkinshaw, 1997; Uzzi,

1997; Amit and Zott, 2001). Good tables are an important support for constructs and

arguments for causal relationships. Tables can importantly help readers apply their

own standards for judging the study.

Shaping propositions continues with the verification of their fit with the data

from the cases. At this stage, the researcher should keep iterating between the data

and emerging framework, adjusting the new framework so that its fit with the data

grows, increasing the empirical validity of the model. Some relationships will prove

not to have backing from data, and they will have to be discarded. In fact, as

15

Eisenhardt pointed out, the difference of this verificational phase to theory-testing

research is just that the checking is done for each case separately – a manifestation of

the replication logic – and, as opposed to quantitative testing, does not involve

statistical procedures.

In the replication logic, cases that confirm proposed relationships enhance

confidence in the validity of findings. Conflicting cases can provide an opportunity to

refine and extend the emerging theory. They can for instance, lead to the

identification of new dimensions with which a model has to be amended to improve

explanation. One should remember, however, that cases need not display similar

results, especially if there is a theoretical reason to believe that they should not

because of the influence of a factor external to the proposition. Such a theoretical

reason will account for ‘theoretical replication’ (Yin, 1994, p. 46). The researcher will

have to rely on analysis and the stringent rotation between data, the emergent

framework, and existing literature, and thereafter conclude whether the analysis

converges to certain propositions. Replication can be claimed whenever two or more

cases support a proposition, and established replication will enhance the belief in the

validity of the results. Replication can be claimed also when there is such conflict that

can be explained by the variation of an external factor (see, e.g. Yin, 1994).

Analogously to conflicting case results, finding of conflict with earlier

literature may reveal places for improvement in existing knowledge but may also

create a need to do more iteration to distinguish the contribution of the present work

and to see if its results are valid. One must keep in mind that the result of a grounded

theory inquiry may be disappointing, leading to no new insights of significant value.

All insights from the emerging framework may turn out only to replicate prior theory

or turn out not to converge (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989).

16

A critical aspect to internal validity is understanding the underlying theoretical

reasons for why something happens, and qualitative data has the advantage of

providing rich opportunities for this. This understanding will facilitate understanding

if an identified relationship could be just a spurious one or perhaps caused by an

external variable that has not been recognized before. Overall, the strengths and

consistency of the propositions have to be examined both within and across cases.

In grounded theory research, it can at times be very challenging to distinguish

one’s results from results already achieved by others. When the first initial results

have emerged from data analysis, the researcher can begin comparing these with prior

literature.

Comparison with existing literature is a key part of the rotation between data,

emergent framework, and theory that is inherent to the grounded theory process. A

large enough body of literature needs to be considered and similarities and

contradiction sought so that new contributions can be distilled. Similarly with

contrasting cases, contrasting literature can even be helpful in producing

framebreaking new insights to factors such as new dimensions or constructs. In the

best scenario, new views can be gained to the emerging framework, to the conflicting

literature, and to the domain of external validity. However, as in contrasting cases,

counteracting literature may also just reduce confidence in the validity of the findings.

Contrasting literature may point out to incorrect results, that is, limited internal

validity, or to case-idiosyncracy of the results, or in other words, limited external

validity.

Literature of analogous phenomena that nevertheless does not pertain to the

very same phenomena can be valuable, because it can show similarities that are

typically not analyzed in connection to each other, and new insights can, once again,

17

result. Improved levels of conceptual representation and external and internal validity

can follow from such comparison. Typically, these three benefits are the key

advantages that can accrue from rigorous comparison of the results with earlier

literature.

Finally, we discuss a more practical issue that has some relevance: the

selection between explicit and embedded presentation of propositions in the research

report. This refers to the selection on whether the propositions are stated as separate

full sentences that often are labeled with a preceding ‘Proposition 1:’ or equivalent

label, or if the reader will have to pick them up by reading relevant parts of the report

text.

Advantages of presenting propositions explicitly as separate sentences include

that they will be easily accessible for glancing readers and also more quickly

recognizable for all. Explicit statements will provide the presentation with a more

strict structure, and help to concretize the contributions of the research and make them

stand out. However, in some cases, a touch of generality and a recognition of potential

application areas might perhaps be lost if the thinking of the reader is guided by

ready-formatted statements. This might make it optimal to present propositions

embedded in the text.

In our review of a large number of articles, we found that authors typically

ground their results relatively well to existing literature, addressing the findings’ links

to prior knowledge at the latest in the results section. The ‘contribution to theory’ of

contemporary papers, however, is often rather topical in nature, that is, studies still

mostly present ‘theories about specific phenomena’ as typical outcomes were

described by Eisenhardt (1989, p. 547). In the analyzed papers, both explicit and

embedded presentation of propositions are frequently employed choices. Roughly,

18

about a half of those papers that we reviewed for selection to our analysis explicitly

presented propositions in a sentence format.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper and in its companion, we have distinguished the presentation

from many of prior grounded theory review by two focal means. First, in the

beginning of the companion paper, we have presented an explicit discussion on the

paradigmatic position of grounded theory – that is, we have identified how the

method’s epistemology and ontology can be and have been viewed, and how these

views affect the use of the methodology. We have organized our discussion of

grounded theory’s position by acknowledging each important dimension that is

relevant for the total positioning of a method. We have noted the possible paradigms

from which the method can be viewed and have taken an explicit stand on that we

view it from the perspective of the postpositivistic paradigm.

One notably important aspect and subissue of our paradigmatic discussion

pertains to the interrelation of ‘case study research’ and ‘grounded theory research.’

We have explicitly defined these terms, not leaving their meaning and mutual

relationship blurred or vague. Several definitions can be proposed for case study

research, and in our opinion, it is advantageous – and, in fact, the only appropriate

way to represent the actual meaning of the term ‘case study’ – that the case study be

viewed as a selection of the object of study, not method. ‘Case research’ is, indeed,

often used wrong, for instance as an euphemism for qualitative research (Locke,

2001). We wish to reiterate to emphasize this important definitional point. We have

taken the definition of case study as a choice of object of investigation in the papers.

In this position, the research method or strategy should be viewed as another, separate

19

dimension. The twin papers review the intersection of using the grounded theory

method and investigating cases as objects of study. In other words, several different

methods can be used in the study of cases. This fact together with the meaning of the

term ‘case study’ implies to us that it is misleading to talk of case study as a method.

While it would be possible to adopt such practice for the method’s label, the label

would be a misnomer.

Second, we particularly discuss grounded theory as a method for research in

the entrepreneurship domain. We have conducted a review of more than 200

entrepreneurship articles from the years 1996 through 2003 that use the grounded

theory or a similar method, and we have selected eight articles for a detailed analysis.

This analysis is summarized in the Appendix of this paper and verbally reflected

throughout the texts of this and the companion paper. We have used the analysis to

illustrate potent ways of employing the method. We have also pointed out places that

call for improvement. Furthermore, we have illustrated the flexibility of the method

by pointing out how the it can be fitted into different environments and which

variations in its use are possible, appropriate, or advantageous.

Feasibility, Process, and Outcomes of Grounded Theory Research

In the presentation of the twin papers, strongly combined and synergistic

between the papers in design, we have first discussed the position of grounded theory

research, its history, potential outcomes from it, and its feasibility in different

environments. We then have reviewed phases of the grounded theory process,

introducing key design issues, requirements for researchers and a pilot study, data

collection and sources of evidence, and conducting the analysis. Finally, we have

20

discussed the formation of propositions and identifying connections with prior

literature.

A grounded theory approach is often feasible and appropriate when the

research question pertains to a field where not much prior theory exist, and in which

theories of other fields may lack validity or conflict. Qualitative research can also

provide a fresh perspective on a topic that has already received scholarly attention

(Hitt et al., 1998).

Case study in general has been suggested to be appropriate when the study

focuses on contemporary events over which the researcher has little control (Yin,

1994). Furthermore, qualitative research often stands much better chances that other

research to grasp the complexity of social phenomena (Dougherty, 2002). Qualitative

research can also drill deep into phenomena where obtaining reliable quantitative data

might be troublesome.

Grounded theory researchers should begin by formulating a research problem

and making sure they have relevant background information of prior literature and

theory that might be applicable or provide directions of potential a priori constructs or

formulating the research procedure, including sampling. Sampling should be

theoretical in nature, seeking to obtain variation in key variables. Decisions between

single and multiple case structures as well as holistic and embedded design has to be

made. The replication logic in multiple-case designs is an important means for

supporting external validity. Researchers can importantly benefit from the richness of

qualitative data, and triangulation in terms of, for instance, data types, researchers,

and sometimes even the use of complementary methods outside the domain of

grounded theory.

21

The overlap of data collection and analysis is an important feature of

qualitative research that facilitates improving quality of research. Within- and cross-

case analysis phases and various more detailed tools provide a structure for analysis.

Iterative rotation between data, literature, and emerging propositions is a key feature

of grounded theory research. It is important to know when the results have reached

saturation and the iteration can be stopped.

Grounded theory research can have many outcomes (Eisenhardt, 1989; the

present paper’s Appendix). It can lead to, among others, ‘causal theory,’ wherein

relationships of mutually interacting constructs are explained, or ‘process theory,’

wherein the explanation specifically focuses on sequences of temporally evolving

action, changes in which can be traced to structural and environmental changes

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 163). Potential outcomes also include mere building

blocks of theory, for instance, concepts, typologies, and suggestions for facilitating

statistical research, such as ideas for potentially valid measurement items.

The Future of Grounded Theory Research

Dougherty (2002) succinctly raised some avenues where researchers might

work to enhance the quality of grounded theory in the future, and the first one of them

concerns research problems. She argued for better framing of research questions and

for the related task of better arguing the purpose of investigation. She pointed out that

this framing is challenging because it is difficult to know enough of earlier theory but

still not let it guide the process. Genuine fit of the method with the research question

is of essence.

Both Dougherty (2002) and our results point out that data representation and

its display should be improved. Readers would be able to much better recognize the

22

support of the actual data for the presented propositions and theoretical implications if

appropriate tables would be used. There are a huge number of types of displays (Miles

and Huberman, 1994) and different types fit different presentations. In many cases of

grounded theory research, however, a table representing the variances of an

underlying factor and a factor affected by it would provide excellent illustration and

support for the results’ validity. If possible, tables can be used to provide detailed

description of data underlying each factor, and then a summary table could tie

together the effects for all factors of the proposed model.

Dougherty (2002) also suggested that report structures be given more thought.

A common way to report literature in reports is to introduce it prior to the method,

data, and results – that is, grounded theory reports follow the same format in this than

deductive papers typically do. This would appear to be a fine choice, even though it

remains possible to first introduce the data and then prior literature, a choice that

might better reflect the origin of grounded theory that is in data and not in hypotheses

from prior literature.

A further improvement to grounded theory efforts would be enhancing their

contributions to existing base of theory. We specifically mean that in addition to

creating new, context-specific theory, the level of abstraction should be raised and

contributions to more established theories should be identified more often in research.

Currently, as illustrated by our analysis, many contributions of articles of the first tier

journals are ‘essentially theories about specific phenomena’ that lack the sweep of

grand theory; the situation is alike in the 1980s, when Eisenhardt could use these

words (1989, p. 547). As we take the positivistic or postpositivistic perspective to

viewing research, we advocate seeking an elevated level of abstraction so that

enhanced generality can be reached.

23

We hope that our papers help entrepreneurship scholars to clearly state their

method and details of analysis, including the paradigmatic position, and well

articulate the contents of the propositions and issues of quality of study.

For a proportion of research problems in the domain of entrepreneurship,

grounded theory potentially presents a very fruitful methodological selection. The

accumulation of knowledge requires constant iteration between theory-creation and

testing, much like grounded theory requires iteration between data, the emerging

framework, and literature. Good grounded theory is likely to have the benefits of

novelty, validity, and testability, and providing an early conception of new research

domains. As pointed out by Eisenhardt (1989), this type of research importantly

complements incremental theory building via empirical testing and extension.

Bergmann Lichtenstein and Brush (2001) noted the increasing use of theory-building

with multiple case studies in entrepreneurship. We wish to support the further use of

the method and hope to have contributed to the spread of knowledge on its

employment.

24

REFERENCES

Altheide, D. & Johnson, J. M. 1994. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in

qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Amit, R. & Zott, C. 2001. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management

Journal, 22(6/7): 493-520.

Barringer, B. R. & Greening, D. W. 1998. Small business growth through geographic

expansion: A comparative case study. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6): 467-492.

Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. & Brush, C. G. 2001. How do "resource bundles"

develop and change in new ventures? A dynamic model and longitudinal exploration.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3): 37-58.

Birkinshaw, J. 1997. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The

characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3): 207-

229.

Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking

complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 1-34.

Brundin, E. 2004. Strategies for collecting empirical material for real-time studies. In

Neergaard, H. & Ulhøi, J. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in

Entrepreneurship, forthcoming in 2005: Edward Elgar.

25

Charmaz, K. 2000. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: 163-188.

Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative

research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative

Research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: Wiley.

Dougherty, D. 2002. Grounded theory research methods. In Baum, J. A. C. (Ed.), The

Blackwell Companion to Organizations: Padstow, UK.: Blackwell.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Bourgeois, L. J., III 1988. Politics of strategic decision-making

in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 737-770.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.

Flick, U. 1992. Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative? Journal

for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22: 175-198.

Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2002. Institutional entrepreneurship in the

sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and

Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214.

26

Glaser, B. G. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing.

Mill Valley, CA.: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies

for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL.: Aldine Publishing Company.

Gummesson, E. 1991. Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Newbury Park,

CA.: Sage.

Hitt, M., Harrison, J., Ireland, R. D., & Best, A. 1998. Attributes of successful and

unsuccessful acquisitions of US firms. British Journal of Management, 9(2): 91-114.

Huberman, M. & Miles, M. B. 1994. Data management and analysis methods. In

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: Thousand

Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602-611.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. 2000. Participatory action research. In Denzin, N. K. &

Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Kirby, D. A. & Kaiser, S. 2003. Joint ventures as an internationalisation strategy for

SMEs. Small Business Economics, 21(3): 229-242.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beveerly Hills, CA.: Sage.

Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA.:

Sage.

27

Mäkelä, M. M. & Turcan, R. V. 2004. Grounded theory in entrepreneurship studies:

Feasibility of the method and the design of research. PrePrint Publication, Software

Business and Engineering Institute, Helsinki University of Technology.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. Beverly Hills,

CA.: Sage.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. 1979. An emerging strategy of "direct" research. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 24: 582-589.

Pettigrew, A. 1992. The character and significance of strategy process research.

Strategic Management Journal, 13: 5-16.

Smith, L. M. 1994. Biographical method. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.),

Handbook of Qualitative Research: Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Steier, L. & Greenwood, R. 2000. Entrepreneurship and the evolution of angel

financial networks. Organization Studies, 21(1): 163-192.

Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research: Thousand

Oaks, CA.: Sage.

28

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of

embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 35-67.

Van Maanen, J. 1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Yin, R. K. 1981. The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 26: 58-65.

Yin, R. K. 1984. Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.

Yin, R. K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA.:

Sage.

Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.:

Sage.

29

APPENDIX

Exemplar Entrepreneurship Articles Employing Case Study Approaches to

Grounded Theory or Similar Research

We used the World Wide Web and libraries to survey Administrative Science

Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal,

Organization Science, Management Science, Journal of Management, Journal of

Management Studies, Organization Studies, Journal of Business Venturing,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Small Business Economics, for articles

published since 1996 with a significant entrepreneurship connection and that

employed a grounded theory or similar method in the sense that they produced

propositions forming a theoretical framework of some level. We also searched for the

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research – the conference proceedings publication of

the Babson College–Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurship Research Conference.

Our objective in identifying and analyzing papers was finding out how do such

papers differ and what do they have in common in the various stages of research and

in the aspects of the report, and from more than 200 papers reviewed, we picked eight

papers for the purpose of illustrating the conduct of grounded theory and similar

approaches in practice and especially to illustrate the variations in published research.

Since the papers were selected merely for illustration, we selected them on grounds

that they appeared to relatively well represent what we, based on a subjective and

intuitive estimate, considered the population of such papers to represent. In other

words, we did not attempt to produce a detailed analysis of various types of

qualitative research and its appearance in different scholarly outlets, but rather

browsed the literature for examples that would serve this and the companion paper

30

well by illustrating our points that we wish to emphasize about making grounded

theory research.

We explicitly searched for those papers addressing the high-growth venturing

type of entrepreneurship and not general ‘small business’ literature.

The eight papers have many similarities that are also shared by a majority of

other papers we reviewed: The research problem is often clearly expressed (although

not always explicitly), links to prior literature are presented both in stating the

position and justification for the research and in articulating the value and

contribution of the findings. Review of prior literature was typically presented in the

beginning of the paper as is typical with hypothesis-testing research; Dougherty

(2002) notes that it is also possible to begin the discussion on earlier research only

after presenting the data and analysis in the report.

While all of the articles acknowledge the existence of some earlier theory that

has implications for the research, they build their theory on existing frameworks and

articulate links thereto; Amit and Zott (2001) had the objective of integrating several

earlier theories. Common to the papers was also that they did not make much use of

quotes within text; some made none. Using illustrative quotes within tables was also

quite rare. One can ponder reasons for this and hypothesize that authors do not see

that offering detailed quotes could offer significant value while the number of them

would in any case be small so that quotes cannot convey a broad picture of the whole

data.

Pilot studies were very rare. In fact, only Amit and Zott (2001) and Uzzi

(1997) were found to report such features as we indicate in the column ‘Other

Information.’ All interviews that authors described were semistructured. One

observation which may have important implications if generalizable to a wider

31

population is that papers seldom used tables for illustrating how the causal or process

relationships of the emergent theory were present in the data. Such presentation would

arguably increase the credibility of a grounded theory study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles

and Huberman, 1994, Dougherty, 2002).

In a majority of our exemplar papers introduced the main contents of their data

in tables, and some also discussed it in the text. A few papers, typically those with one

or two cases only, included a lengthy discussion of the case. Many of the papers

provided a vague description of the methodology, especially analysis, and in some

papers the discussion was lacking. It was rare that the quality of the research was

discussed in a dedicated section of the paper and with using a thorough set of labels

for aspects of quality, such as construct, internal, and external validity and reliability

proposed by Yin (1994). Many papers did, however, more or less explicitly address

several aspects of validity in their methods section. Finally, a number of names was

used for similar methods, including ‘grounded theory,’ ‘case study,’ ‘inductive

research,’ ‘comparative case study,’ ‘analytical induction,’ and ‘naturalistic inquiry.’

Further details where the papers significantly differ are introduced in the table below.

Table: Examples of case study approaches to grounded theory or similar researcha

Article Journalb Topic Key Findings Method Stated Justification for Method Key

Methodology References

Sampling

(Amit and Zott, 2001)

SMJ Value creation in e-business

‘Efficiency, complementarities, lock-in, and novelty’ identified as key factors underlying value creation potential. Integration of earlier theories sought via offering a business model framework

Inductive; case study; iterative; ‘grounded theory’ mentioned

Existing theories inadequate; ‘lack of prior theorizing about a topic’ (p. 500); ‘grounding of the emerging theory in the data can provide a new perspective on an already researched topic’ (e.g. Hitt et al., 1998, p. 500); boundaries between phenomenon and context not evident (with reference to Yin, 1981); replication sought via multiple case approach

Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Yin, 1981; 1989

30 US Internet businesses random sampled; all 29 European firms included; authors acknowledged that theoretical sampling can be argued for

(Barringer and Greening, 1998)

JBV Entrepreneurial small businesses’ growth via geographic expansion

Identification of antecedents for effective expansion

Inductive; multiple cases

Little research on the ‘topic’; nature of the case method suited for early stages of theory development

Denzin, 1978; Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Strauss, 1987

Five cases theoretically sampled; polar types in terms of success were chosen

(Bergmann Lichtenstein and Brush, 2001)

ETP Development and change of resource bundles in new ventures

Types of salient resources identified; types of change in them identified; a link between the type of change and performance identified

Longitudinal study of three cases; termed exploratory by authors

Lack of empirical ‘validation’ of RBV in new ventures; avoiding retrospective bias; the increasing use of comparative case studies in entrepreneurship

Several, e.g. Denzin, 1978; Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Pettigrew, 1992

Three ventures that fitted the scope were chosen; no further justification was provided

(Birkinshaw, 1997)

SMJ Characteristics of subsidiary initiatives in MNEs; corporate entrepreneur-ship

Subsidiary entrepreneurship can enhance local responsiveness and global learning and integration; contextual mechanisms limited in creating differentiated subsidiary roles

Inductive; multiple cases

Quality and richness of data; multiple initiatives per subsidiary to avoid selection bias; understudied topic

Yin, 1984; Miles and Huberman, 1984

39 initiatives in six subsidiaries; variation in key attributes was sought; also some convenience sampling; sampling stopped according to the principle of saturation

33

Article Journalb Topic Key Findings Method Stated Justification for Method Key

Methodology References

Sampling

(Garud et al., 2002)

AMJ Institutional entrepreneurship in a firm’s sponsorship of its technology

Standards-in-the-making generate seeds of fragmentation; social and political skills identified that a sponsor uses to overcome challenges

Inductive single-case study, ‘naturalistic inquiry’ with an aim to ‘generalize to a theory’ (p. 199); iterative, systematic analysis

Complexity of the phenomenon makes a naturalistic, interpretive, and inductive study feasible

Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Jick, 1979; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Miles and Huberman, 1984

Explicit discussion on why Sun Microsystems and its Java technology were chosen as study objects

(Kirby and Kaiser, 2003)

SBE JV strategies as means of SMEs to overcome internationalization restrictions

Outline of problems in JV strategy; similarities of experiences to MNEs; JV partner selection and obtaining help thereby is important

Questionnaires from 21 SMEs; descriptive statistics only; 2 mainly illustrative cases

Not explicitly provided; newness of the mentioned; work is rather exploratory but provides ‘loose propositions’

Dillman, 1978 for survey research; no case study references; methods very little discussed

All UK and German SMEs with a JV in China were sought after

(Steier and Greenwood, 2000)

OS Development and evolution of angel financial networks of entrepreneurial firms

Network efficiency is positively associated with entrepreneurs’ dependence of investors; Entrepreneurs avoid dependency by creating redundant networks or by building robust ties to individual investors

Longitudinal single-case study, ‘subjectivist’ approach

The aim is theory development; not much prior theory on the subject; single-cases especially well-suited for identifying processes

Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Mintzberg, 1979; Yin, 1984

No devoted discussion; a case with an angel financier network was just picked

(Uzzi, 1997) ASQ Embeddedness and competition in interfirm networks

Embeddedness is a logic of exchange that promotes economic performance up to a threshold and derails it beyond it

Ethnographic ‘grounded theory’ of relationships of 23 entrepreneurial firms (interfirm tie as the unit of analysis)

‘Field methods’ viewed as advantageous due to their providing rich data for in-depth analysis and theorizing

Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Miles and Huberman, 1984

Selection from New York’s women’s ‘better-dress’ firms; variation sought in a number of variables; stated reasons for this were representativeness and controlling variables

34

Article Key Data

Typesc Analysis Use of Displays Presentation of

Propositions Assessment of Quality Other Information

(Amit and Zott, 2001)

Archival documents: www sites, analysts’ and annual reports; IPO prospectuses, SEC’s database; supposedly no interviews were made

The overlap of data collection and analysis exploited; within- and cross-case analyses; field notes; ‘no narratives’; data and researcher triangulation; tabulation of evidence

Model diagram; illustrations of value sources; table linking emerging value constructs to prior theories; links between the value source and business model frameworks

Embedded within article text; presented throughout a majority of the paper

Many aspects of reliability and validity discussed in various terms; external validity also discussed in terms of statistical generalization

Pre-announced attempt to integrate earlier theories; statistical study features present (large number of cases; random sampling; statistical generalization problems discussed); a pilot study-like feature of changing the questionnaire after the beginning

(Barringer and Greening, 1998)

Apparently 2-3 interviews per case; archival documents

Coding with ‘typical’ content analysis procedures; coding used not only emergent categories but also categories directly from prior literature in its first phase; data triangulation noted

Model diagram; case descriptions; degree of case firms’ achievement of success characteristics

Embedded, throughout the latter half of the paper

Aspects of validity discussed in various parts of the paper

(Bergmann Lichtenstein and Brush, 2001)

Interviews – altogether 13 site visits in three cases, 5-15 people interviewed during each visit; documents

Systematic and iterative analysis of content; pattern matching; coding for process identification

Earlier research; data collection; case timelines; exploratory findings; enumeration of change type frequencies in case data

Explicit; in the end Explicit assessment of different types of validity

(Birkinshaw, 1997)

Interviews, apparently 100; questionnaire

Miles and Huberman’s (1984) procedures used for data reduction; case histories were used for identifying propositions; coding not discussed

Prior research; description of interviews and cases; model diagram; questionnaire data; summary of findings

Embedded; in the end

Several aspects of validity discussed in various parts of the paper

Much quantitative data and statistical testing included

35

Article Key Data Typesc Analysis Use of Displays Presentation of

Propositions Assessment of Quality Other Information

(Garud et al., 2002)

Archival documents: online news services; articles, press releases

A chronology constructed; iteration until theoretical saturation; data triangulation mentioned; coding not mentioned

Model diagram; list of events of the case timeline

Embedded; emerge throughout the empirical part but more in the end

‘Procedural adequacy’ and ‘credibility’ emphasized and ‘established by employing steps that Miles and Huberman (1984) suggested’ (p. 199); data triangulation noted; validity assessed; a decision made as to which level of generality to express results at

A long case description along timeline

(Kirby and Kaiser, 2003)

Questionnaire and apparently a few (2-4) interviews

Qualitative analysis not discussed; descriptive statistics drawn from questionnaire data

Displays of descriptive statistics

Embedded Embedded, some discussion on generalizability problems

Cases used just for illustration; cases apparently based on data from one or two interviews only; propositions drawn from descriptive statistics; a vague connection to theory; long case descriptions

(Steier and Greenwood, 2000)

30 ‘formal’ and 16 ‘less formal’ interviews; documents

Methods only briefly mentioned; iteration; analysis ‘not sequential nor structured - - as is normal in subjectivist approaches’ (p. 170)

Interviews; case firm and financial network descriptions

Explicit in the end; discussion part very long

Some aspects of reliability and validity explicitly discussed

A long case description

(Uzzi, 1997) 42 interviews; additional discussions with case-independent industry experts

Iterative rotation at least within data and the emerging framework; use of displays for data reduction

Case characteristics; amount of interviewing; a diagram for illustrating interfirm networks; enumeration of frequencies of emerging constructs in the data; model diagram

Explicit; in the end Many aspects of validity and reliability discussed; external validity discussed in terms of statistical generalization (’23 cases - - can have but moderate generalizability’, p. 38)

Two pilot study interviews used; a large number of propositions: 16

a Abbreviations used in table, excluding journal abbreviations: IPO, initial public offering; JV, joint venture; MNE, multinational enterprise; RBV, resource-based view of the firm; SEC, U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission; SME, small or medium-sized enterprise. b Abbreviations for the journals are: AMJ, Academy of Management Journal; ASQ, Administrative Science Quarterly; ERD, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development; ETP,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice; JBV, Journal of Business Venturing; JM, Journal of Management; JMS, Journal of Management Studies; OS, Organization Studies; SBE, Small Business Economics; SMJ, Strategic Management Journal.

c In practice, we conclude that observation data has been in an important role in all or many papers with interviews even though it was rarely mentioned.