Cited by 14Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Online and mobile customer behaviour: a critical evaluation of Grounded Theory studies

Open access
Valvi, Aikaterini C., Frangos, Constantinos C., Frangos, Christos C.·2013·Behaviour & Information Technology

Abstract

With the rapid increase in electronic and mobile commerce over the last few years, the academic literature on online and mobile customer behaviour has been fairly plentiful with a great deal of quantitative studies testing variations of existing customer behaviour theories. However, little attention has been given to qualitative studies in the field, which seek to explore new aspects of online or mobile customer behaviour, adding to existing theories or even creating new ones. Thus, the purpose of the present paper is to critically evaluate studies employing Grounded Theory (GT), a method commonly used for theory building in qualitative social research. Nine studies were identified examining online or mobile customer behaviour under this approach, providing theories based on emerging categories. Results of their studies seem to be very similar to existing customer behaviour theories, occasionally adding new categories to the existing theory nomenclature. Studies presented weaknesses regarding the accurate methodological conduct of GT and the process of generating theory, attributed predominantly to methodological, verification and reporting bias. Nevertheless, the main advantage of GT studies remains the generation of theory that can be applied in practice, reinforced by the presentation of conceptual prospects for testing new variables in quantitative studies. Overall, the contribution of GT studies to online and mobile customer behaviour research should be based on more rigorous methodology and aim to challenge rather than confirm existing theories with the purpose of advancing knowledge in the field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0144929x.2013.789082

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 95 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valvi, A. C., Frangos, C. C., & Frangos, C. C.
Affiliations
Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Valvi, Aikaterini C.
Venue
Behaviour & Information Technology
Published
2013-07
Volume
32
Issue
7
Pages
655-667
ISSN
  • 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-3001
OpenAlex
W2089924297
Cited by
14
References
95
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
6.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
grounded theory, theory development, qualitative research methodology, methodological bias, reporting bias, theory testing, e-commerce, mobile commerce

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review