CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 253Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsData Analysis and ArchivingSociology and Education Studies

Adding Theoretical Grounding to Grounded Theory: Toward Multi-Grounded Theory

Open access
Goldkuhl, Göran, Cronholm, Stefan·2010·International Journal of Qualitative Methods
DOI 10.1177/160940691000900205
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to challenge some of the cornerstones of the grounded theory approach and propose an extended and alternative approach for data analysis and theory development, which the authors call multi-grounded theory (MGT). A multi-grounded theory is not only empirically grounded; it is also grounded in other ways. Three different grounding processes are acknowledged: theoretical, empirical, and internal grounding. The authors go beyond the pure inductivist approach in GT and add the explicit use of external theories. A working procedure of theory development in MGT is presented, which can be seen as an extension of the grounded theory approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/160940691000900205

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Multi-Grounded Theory (Goldkuhl & Cronhonm, 2010) is based not only on data but on theoretical, empirical and external fundamentals; it goes beyond pure inductive approaches because it explicitly embodies use of external theories.

    “The Multi-Grounded Theory (Goldkuhl & Cronhonm, 2010) is not only based on data, but on theoretical, empirical and external fundamentals; it goes beyond pure inductive approaches, since it explicitly embodies the use of external theories.”

    From Deconstructing the Glaser-Strauss Dilemma: Integrative Discussion about the Grounded Theory in Management (2023) · cites this paper as Goldkuhl & Cronhonm, 2010

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Multiple interpretations of reality enable the emergence of new substantive theories or adaptive-substantive ones, due to comparison and explicit use of external theories in successive reviews of data collection stages.

    “The multiple interpretations of reality (Charmaz, 2017;Rakhmawati, 2019) enable the emergence of new substantive theories or of adaptive-substantive ones, due to the comparison and explicit use of external theories in the successive reviews of data collection stages.(Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010)”

    From Deconstructing the Glaser-Strauss Dilemma: Integrative Discussion about the Grounded Theory in Management (2023) · cites this paper as Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 65 · Cited by 253

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Ågerfalk, P. (2004). Grounding through operationalization: Constructing tangible theory in IS research. Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2004), Turku, Finland, Paper 24. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2004/24
  2. Axelsson, K., & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Theory modeling: Action focus when building a multi- grounded theory. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Reading, United Kingdom.
  3. Axelsson, K., & Goldkuhl, G. (2008). The social construction of data stability: Discovering tactics for 3stablishing and preserving stability in data bases. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2008), Galway, Ireland.
  4. Babchuk, W. (1997). Glaser or Strauss? Grounded theory and adult education. Paper presented at Midwest Research-To Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
  5. Borg, A., Patel, M., & Sandahl, K. (2007). Integrating an improvement model of handling capacity requirements with the OpenUP/Basic Process. In P. Sawyer, B. Paech, & P. Heymans (Eds.), REFSQ 2007 (LNCS 4542, pp. 341-354). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  6. Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3). Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
  7. Braf, E. (2004). Knowledge demanded for action: Studies of knowledge mediation in organizations. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University, Sweden.
  8. Bruce, C., D. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and its interaction with analysis in a grounded theory study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
  9. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 25-42.
  10. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  11. Cronholm, S. (2002). Grounded theory in use: A review of experiences. In Proceedings of European Conference on Research Methods in Business, Reading, United Kingdom.
  12. Cronholm, S. (2004). Illustrating multi-grounded theory. In Proceedings of the 3 rd European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Reading, United Kingdom.
  13. Cronholm, S. (2005). Multi-grounded theory in practice: A review of experiences from use. In Proceedings of QualIT2005, Brisbane.
  14. Cronholm, S., & Goldkuhl, G. (1994, June). Meanings and motives of method customizations in CASE environments: Observations and categorizations from an empirical study. In B. Theodoulides (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th workshop on the next generation of CASE tools. Twente, the Netherlands: Universiteit Twente.
  15. Eaves, Y. (2001). A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(5), 654-663.
  16. Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. Whitman & A. Woszczynski (Eds.), The Handbook of information systems research (pp. 79-102).
  17. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  18. Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  19. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1965). The discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5-12.
  20. Goldkuhl, G, (2002), Anchoring scientific abstractions: Ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism. In Proceedings of European Conference on Research Methods in Business, Reading, United Kingdom.
  21. Goldkuhl, G. (2004a). Conceptual determination when developing a multi-grounded theory: Example-Defining ISD method. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management (ECRM 2004), Reading, United Kingdom.
  22. Goldkuhl, G. (2004b). Design theories in information systems: A need for multi-grounding. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 6(2), 59-72.
  23. Goldkuhl, G., & Lind, M. (2010). A multi-grounded design research process. In R. Winter, L. Shao, & S. Aier (Eds.), Global perspectives on design science research: DESRIST-2010 Proceedings (LNCS 6105, pp. 45-60). Berlin: Springer.
  24. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  25. Hedström, K, (2007). The values of IT in elderly care. Information Technology & People, 20(1), 72-84.
  26. Holgersson. S., Gottschalk, P., & Dean, G. (2008). Knowledge management in law enforcement: Knowledge views for patrolling police officers. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 10(1), 76-88.
  27. Karlsson, F. (2005). Method configuration: Method and computerized tool support. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University, Sweden.
  28. Karlsson, F., & Wistrand, K. (2006). Combining method engineering with activity theory: Theoretical grounding of the method component concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), 82-90.
  29. Lind, M., & Goldkuhl, G. (2002). Grounding of methods for business change: Altering between empirical, theoretical and internal grounding. In Proceedings of European Conference on Research Methods in Business, Reading, United Kingdom.
  30. Lind. M., & Goldkuhl, G. (2006). How to develop a multi-grounded theory: The evolution of a business process theory. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 13(2), 69-85.
  31. Orlikowski, J. (1993). CASE tools as organisational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309-340. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org/archivist/bestpaper/orlikowski.pdf
  32. Peirce, C. S. (1931-35). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  33. Pries-Heje, J. (1992). Three barriers for continuing use of computer-based tools in information systems development: A grounded theory approach. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4, 119-136.
  34. Popper, K. (1940). What is dialectic? Mind, 49(196), 403-426.
  35. Rennie, D., Phillips, J., & Quartaro, G. (1988). Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptualization in psychology? Canadian Psychology, 29(2), 139-150.
  36. Rescher, N. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  37. Rittgen, P. (2007). Multi-grounded development of enterprise modeling methods: The case of SIMM. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Managing worldwide operations and communications with information technology. Vancouver: Information Resources Management Association International Conference, Idea Group.
  38. Scott, K. W. (2004). Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: Using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report, 9(1), 113-126. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html
  39. Scott, K. W., & Howell, D. (2008). Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: Using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(2), 1-15. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
  40. Seaman, J. (2008). Adopting a grounded theory approach to cultural-historical research: Conflicting methodologies or complementary methods? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index
  41. Taxén, L. (2007). Activity modalities: A multi-dimensional perspective on coordination, business processes and communication. Systems, Signs & Actions, 3(1), 93-133.
  42. Urquhart, C. (2001). An encounter with grounded theory: Tackling the practical and philosophical issues. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends (pp. 104-140).
  43. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.
  44. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Authors
Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-06
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
187-205
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/160940691000900205
OpenAlex
W1583242605
Cited by
253
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
43.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) (submittedVersion)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
Keywords
grounded theory, theory development, theoretical grounding, empirical grounding, inductivism, qualitative data analysis

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