Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a rejoinder to Joannidès and Berland's comment on Gurd's paper on the use of grounded theory (GT) in interpretive accounting research, re‐establishing the basics of GT.Design/methodology/approachA refutation by argument.FindingsArgues that GT is definable and the term should be used only where appropriate.Practical implicationsResearchers in accounting should be careful when claiming to use GT. Credibility would be enhanced if there was a more careful explication of method in interpretive research.Originality/valueThis paper continues the debate on GT and should assist both new and experienced researchers to explore the basis of their approach.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
