On the adaptation of Grounded Theory procedures: insights from the evolution of the 2G method

Information Technology & People

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 196-211

  Lings, Brian ^a   Lundell, Björn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Computer software; Information systems; Qualitative methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 24344436745     PISSN: 09593845     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/09593840510615842     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. (2003), “Where now for development methodologies?”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 79-82.
2. Avison, D.E., Wood-Harper, A.T., Vidgen, R.T. and Wood, J.R.G. (1998), “A further exploration into information systems development: the evolution of Multiview2”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 124-139.
3. Baskerville, R. and Prie-Heje, J. (1993), “Combining action research and grounded theory: a method for empirical studies of IS practice”, in Ed. Bansler, J.P., Ed. Bødker, K., Ed. Kensing, F., Ed. Nørbjerg, J. and Ed. Pries-Heje, J. (Eds), Proceedings of the 16th IRIS: Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, Part II, Copenhagen, 7-19 August, pp. 331-345.
4. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (1999), “Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice”, Accounting, Management & Information Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 1-23.
5. Brinton Anderson, B., Bajaj, A. and Gorr, W. (2002), “An estimation of the decision models of senior IS managers when evaluating the external quality of organizational software”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 59-75.
6. Duvall, L.M. (1995), “A study of software management: the state of practice in the United States and Japan”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 31, pp. 109-124.
7. Elliott, G.J., Jones, E. and Barker, P. (2002), “A grounded theory approach to modelling learnability of hypermedia authoring tools”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 547-574.
8. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L. and Stolterman, E. (2002), Information Systems Development: Methods in Action, McGraw-Hill, London.
9. Försäkringskassan (1993), “Slutrapport: Kvalitetsmätning – Ett Projekt för Bättre Uppföljning”, Final Report, 1993-08-13, Diarienummer: 33-1993:76, Försäkringskassan Skaraborg (in Swedish).
10. Försäkringskassan (1993), “DRABANT: Kvalitetsmätning av försäkringskasseärenden”, Handbok, Försäkringskassan Skaraborg (in Swedish).
11. Galal, G.H. (2001), “From contexts to constructs: the use of grounded theory in operationalising contingent process models”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 2-14.
12. Galal, G.H. and Paul, R.J. (1999), “A qualitative scenario approach to managing evolving requirements”, Requirements Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 92-102.
13. Glaser, B. (1999), “The future of grounded theory”, The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
14. Glaser, B.G. (1978), Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity, The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
15. Glaser, B.G. (1998), Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
16. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
17. Grinter, R.E. (1996), “Understanding the role of configuration management systems in software development”, in Ed. Carroll, J.M. and Ed. Tanner, P.P. (Eds), Proceedings of the CHI '96 Conference, Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-40.
18. Howcroft, D. and Hughes, J. (1999), “Grounded Theory: I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it”, in Ed. Brooks, L. and Ed. Kimble, C. (Eds), Information Systems: The Next Generation: Proceedings of the 4th UKAIS Conference, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 129-141.
19. Hughes, J. (1998), “The Development of the GIST (Grounding Information SysTems) methodology: determining situated requirements in information systems analysis”, PhD thesis, Information Systems Research Centre, University of Salford, Salford.
20. Hughes, J. and Howcroft, D. (2000), “Grounded theory: never knowingly understood”, Information Systems Review, Vol. 1, pp. 181-199.
21. ISO (1995), “Information Technology – Guideline for the evaluation and selection of CASE tools”, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG4, ISO/IEC 14102:1995(E) ISO, Geneva.
22. ITS (1995), “Sammanträde med ITS/AG7, Systemutveckling”, Protokoll nr 39, ITS 21/7, 1 March (in Swedish).
23. Kendall, J. (1999), “Axial coding and grounded theory controversy”, Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 21 No. 6, p. 743.
24. Krogh, B. and Mathiassen, L. (1998), “Coordinating problems and methods features”, Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 5, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 333-342.
25. Kunda, D. and Brooks, L. (2000), “Assessing organisational obstacles to component-based development: a case study approach”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 715-725.
26. Lings, B. and Lundell, B. (2004), “On transferring a method into a usage situation”, in Ed. Kaplan, B., Ed. Truex, D., Ed. Wastell, D., Ed. Wood-Harper, T. and Ed. DeGross, J. (Eds), IFIP Working Group 8.2 Conference IS Research Methods Conference: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice: Looking Forward from a 20 Year Perspective on IS Research, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 535-553.
27. Lundell, B. (1995), “A few comments on the DIS: CASE tool evaluation”, personal comment concerning ISO 14102 (DIS), submitted by e-mail for meeting with ITS/AG7, 22 February 1995 (accepted as Swedish comment at meeting ITS 1995).
28. Lundell, B. and Lings, B. (1997), “Evaluation and selection of CASE-tools within the ISO framework: qualitative issues”, in Ed. Sutton, D.J. (Ed.), The Eighth Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS'97), Adelaide, 29 September-2 October, pp. 243-254.
29. Lundell, B. and Lings, B. (2002), “Comments on ISO 14102: the standard for CASE-tool evaluation”, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 381-388.
30. Lundell, B. and Lings, B. (2003), “The 2G method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 375-398.
31. Lundell, B. and Lings, B. (2004), “Method in action and method in tool: a stakeholder perspective”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 215-223.
32. Lundell, B. and Lings, B. (2004), “On understanding evaluation of tool support for IS development”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
33. Lundell, B., Lings, B. and Gustafsson, P.O. (1999), “Method support for developing evaluation frameworks for CASE tool evaluation”, in Ed. Khosrowpour, M. (Ed.), 1999 Information Resources Management Association International Conference – Track: Computer-Aided Software Engineering Tools, IDEA Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 350-358.
34. Lundell, B., Lings, B., Mattsson, A. and Ärlig, U. (2004), “Taking steps to improve working practice: a company experience of method transfer”, in Ed. Fitzgerald, B. and Ed. Wynn, E. (Eds), IT Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 173-178.
35. Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P.A. and Stage, J. (1997), “Who's the customer?”, in Ed. Brinkkemper, S., Ed. Lyytinen, K. and Ed. Welke, R.J. (Eds), Method Engineering: Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 232-245.
36. Morisio, M., Seaman, C.B., Basili, V.R., Parra, A.T., Kraft, S.E. and Condon, S.E. (2002), “COTS-based software development: processes and open issues”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 189-199.
37. Nilsson, A. (1995), “Evolution of methodologies for information systems work: a historical perspective”, in Ed. Dahlbom, B. (Ed.), The Infological Equation: Essays in Honor of Börje Langefors, Gothenburg Studies in Information Systems, Report 6, March, pp. 251-285.
38. Ramesh, B., Pries-Heje, J. and Baskerville, R. (2002), “Internet software engineering: a different class of process”, Annals of Software Engineering, Vol. 14 Nos 1-4, pp. 169-195.
39. Rehbinder, A., Lings, B., Lundell, B., Burman, R. and Nilsson, A. (2002), “Developing a framework for pre-usage evaluations of CASE-tools: a case-study”, in Ed. Harindranath, G., Ed. Rosenberg, D., Ed. Sillince, J.A.A., Ed. Wojtkowski, W., Ed. Wojtkowski, W.G., Ed. Wrycza, S. and Ed. Zupancic, J. (Eds), New Perspectives on Information Systems Development: Theory, Methods and Practice, Kluwer/Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 519-534.
40. Scott, L., Carvalho, L., Jeffery, R., Ambra, J.D. and Becker-Kornstaedt, U. (2002), “Understanding the use of an electronic process guide”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 601-616.
41. Seaman, C.B. (1999), “Qualitative method in empirical studies of software engineering”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 557-572.
42. Seaman, C.B. and Basili, V.R. (1997), “An empirical study of communication in code inspection”, International Conference on Software Engineering, JCSE 97, Boston, MA, pp. 96-106.
43. Seaman, C.B. and Basili, V.R. (1998), “Communication and organization: an empirical study of discussion in inspection meetings”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 559-572.
44. Starrin, B., Larsson, G., Dahlgren, L. and Styrborn, S. (1991), Från upptäckt till presentation: om kvalitativ metod och teorigenerering på empirisk grund, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
45. Starrin, B., Dahlgren, L., Larsson, G. and Styrborn, S. (1997), Along the Path of Discovery: Qualitative Methods and Grounded Theory, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
46. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
47. Urquhart, C. (2001), “An encounter with grounded theory: tackling the practical and philosophical issues”, in Ed. Trauth, E. (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Information Systems: Issues and Trends, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 104-140.
48. Ward, P.T. (1991), “The evolution of structured analysis, part I: the early years”, American Programmer, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 4-16.
49. Ward, P.T. (1992), “The evolution of structured analysis, part II: maturity and its problems”, American Programmer, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 18-29.
50. Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L. and O'Kane, T. (2003), “Software development method tailoring at Motorola”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 65-70.