Hot on the audit trail: How to assess methodological transparency of grounded theory in Management?
Iterative methods such as grounded theory rely on several cycles of comparing empirical phenomena with theoretical inclinations until saturation is reached. We propose a new method for assessing the methodological rigor of these procedures ex-post using an audit trail perspective. Analyzing all grounded theory articles published in ten major management journals 1970-2010, we find that key parameters are underutilized. In particular, negative cases which are the starting point for constant comparisons, are largely not considered. Likewise, majority of articles do not problematize theoretical sampling, leaving it unclear whether theoretical saturation is reached or not.