Grounding Systems Research: Re-establishing Grounded Theory

The visibility of discussion on research methods in the systems area has advanced a good deal in the past two decades. In part this has occurred concomitantly with theoretical developments in systems thinking itself, but a significant contribution has been made by the continual criticism and subversion of the positivist research orthodoxy by interpretative and other anti-positivist approaches. In the field of information systems (IS) this has been amplified by a growing trend away from a technical view of systems – with the system literally seen primarily in terms of the physical devices – to one that seeks to account for non-tangible aspects such as cognition, culture, motivation and so on. This is not to say that these latter orientations are dominant or predominant: Indeed a glance at the top-rated journals in the field – MIS Quarterly, IS Research etc. – continues to indicate otherwise. But there is now an established, resilient and articulate counterposition exemplified by journals such as Information & Organization, and IFIP Working Group G8.2. Research methods are developing in a similar fashion with an increasing use of qualitative methods. One method that is gaining increasing popularity in the systems area is the Grounded Theory Method originated by Glaser and Strauss. There are some profound problems with this * There is always some confusion regarding the distinction between the grounded theory method and grounded theory itself. A grounded theory is the possible outcome of using the method. One might use the method without producing a grounded theory, and there are some who claim to use the method as part of an approach that does not seek to develop grounded theories. Since this paper is specifically concerned with the method, it scrupulously makes correct use of the phrase ‘grounded theory 0-7695-1435-9/02 $1 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35’02) 2 IEEE approach, in particular the unproblematic conceptualization of data, and a level of methodological flexibility that can degenerate into methodological indifference and result in superficial and ambiguous conclusions. Taken together these criticisms stamp the method as positivist, while simultaneously locating it as qualitative and interpretive. This paper argues that the method is not indelibly stamped with these failings and inconsistencies; although they are indeed failings, despite the views of many users of the method. If these faults are remedied, however, the method proves itself particularly suited to research endeavours that proceed from an anti-positivist orientation that sees truth as made rather than as discovered, and where representation is viewed as a distributed, systems phenomenon. The paper seeks to draw general lessons from the Grounded Theory Method and other aspects of the discussion with regard to the study of systems and organizations in particular.