A response to Joannidès and Berland

Bruce Gurd

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 2008, vol. 5, issue 3, 262-265

Abstract: Purpose - The 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/approach - A refutation by argument. Findings - Argues that GT is definable and the term should be used only where appropriate. Practical implications - Researchers 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/value - This paper continues the debate on GT and should assist both new and experienced researchers to explore the basis of their approach.

Keywords: Accounting research; Qualitative research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:5:y:2008:i:3:p:262-265

DOI: 10.1108/11766090810910263

Access Statistics for this article

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is currently edited by Lukas Goretzki and Thomas Ahrens

More articles in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().