In Search of Theory Development in Grounded Investigations: Doctors’ Experiences of Managing as an Example of Fitted and Prospective Theorizing

Abstract

This article draws on a study of doctors' experiences of clinical managing to highlight research conventions that limit the development and use of middle range theories in grounded studies. Using sensemaking and the psychological contract as example frameworks, we illustrate how customary deductive evaluations of middle range theories turn grounded researchers away from theory building. As a correction to these conventions, we offer an inductive approach to building existing theory in grounded investigations that does not depend solely on working with frameworks under different empirical conditions. We suggest that forward theorizing is most likely to progress from a synthesis of fitted explanation and prospective thinking that presses at the limits of the data's usefulness. To illustrate this approach, trialled thinking about novel theoretical juxtapositions and alternative sources was used in conjunction with our clinical director data. The value of this approach was supported in two ways. First, a number of fitted and prospective conjectures are offered about how social identity articulates with psychological contracts and sensemaking in role change situations. Second, new light is shed on the process by which particular social conditions differentially modify employees' social categorizations, and how these inform employee responses to the evolving experience of role change. The article concludes with some tentative proposals for promoting more discussion of theory building in grounded investigations. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004.

Changing practice through boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D

“…This perspective became clearer during the writing, discussions and rewriting process. In accordance with Hallier & Forbes (2004), the analysis also required us to use experiences from studies in other fields.…”

Spiraling Down into Corruption: A Dynamic Analysis of the Social Identity Processes that Cause Corruption in Organizations to Grow

“…The underlying motivation to embezzle according to Cressey was related to status maintenance or status enhancement. Although many scholars in the organizational sciences cite Cres-sey's work (e.g., Ashforth and Anand, 2003;Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990;Hallier and Forbes, 2004;Vardi and Weitz, 2004), and although it also receives much attention in more popular work (e.g., Albrecht et al, 1984;Comer, 1985;Davies, 2000;Wells, 2004), his theory has hardly been developed further. In this paper Cressey's theory is developed further in that downward organizational spirals are identified within the three factors that he proposed.…”

Misused and missed use — Grounded Theory and Objective Hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing

“…In general, grounded studies are especially appropriate for gaining an initial understanding of complex transitions (Hallier & Forbes, 2004). Given the debate about the fundamental changes in how firms operate with respect to corporate social responsibility (Drumwright, 1994), GT is a very appropriate method.…”

“…Furthermore, detailed application of GT techniques is either rarely discussed (Martin & Turner, 1986) or completely missing (Gephart, 2004). Additionally, as Hallier and Forbes (2004) point out, very few recent articles in business research use GT methods for actually developing theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995;Weick, 1995). Suddaby (2006) accuses many authors of having serious misconceptions about GT and Gephart (2004) observes a confusion regarding alternative epistemological approaches to qualitative research.…”

“…However, GT is often misused, that is, used inadequately in the research process, while OH is virtually unknown. While there seems to be a gap between the methodological intention of GT and the focus of recent empirical studies employing GT (Hallier & Forbes, 2004;Suddaby, 2006), the problem with OH is its conspicuous absence. In other words, due to insufficient methodological knowledge on the part of the researchers, GT is often times misused while OH is not used at all.…”