Generating grounded theory from qualitative data: the application of inductive methods in tourism...

Generating Grounded Theoryfrom Qualitative Data: TheApplication of InductiveMethods in Tourism andHospitality ManagementResearchJohn Connell1* and Andy Lowe2

1 Department of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Management, Glasgow CaledonianUniversity, Park Campus, Park Drive, Glasgow G3 6LP, UK2 Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Stenhouse Building, CathedralStreet, Glasgow G4 0RQ, UK

ABSTRACT

Based on a doctoral experience of usingGrounded Theory to research processes ofhotel brand internationalisation, this articleexplains and critically evaluates howresearchers can utilise the method to besteffect within tourism and hospitalitymanagement settings. The fundamentalcharacteristics underlying qualitative researchare outlined prior to a fuller explication of themethod’s essential characteristics andanalytical processes. The authors’ currentapproach to the method is then discussed.Finally, issues based upon theoreticalsensitivity, theoretical contamination, accesslimitations and analytic level are appraisedand addressed. The paper concludes byarguing the method’s relevancy to the field.© 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 13 June 1996; Accepted 26 November 1996Progr. Tourism Hospit. Res. 3, 165–173 (1997)No. of Figures: 0 No. of Tables: 0 No. of Refs: 23

Keywords: research methodology; qualitativeresearch; tourism and hospitality management

research; grounded theory; inductive methods;qualitative data analysis

INTRODUCTION

In common with most management fields,tourism and hospitality research reliesheavily upon deductive research designs,

whereby data is collected and analysed withinpredetermined frameworks. While strategicmanagement and functional management spe-cialisms are perhaps the most common fieldsfrom which to gain structure, researchers haveaccumulated insights and theoretical proposi-tions from wherever they have seen value.Logical deductive approaches are popularbecause they allow researchers to generate clearresearch objectives, to maintain a clear focus andto compare and analyse empirical data withinexplicit constructs. Slattery (1983, p. 12) putsforward the traditional positivist argument forthis approach by proposing that new theory canonly be created from an existing theoreticalfoundation. He states:

It is important to stress that in socialscientific interpretations the empirical taskcannot occur until the hospitality puzzle hasbeen identified, a particular theory has been* Correspondence to: J. Connell

PROGRESS IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH, VOL. 3, 165–173 (1997)

CCC 1077–3509/97/020165–09 $17.50 © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

selected and questions about the puzzle,framed in terms of the theory, have beenasked. To accept anything else would be todeprive the interpretation of its theoretical,and, thus its social scientific, character.

This common positivist vision of howresearchers should conduct investigations sitsfirmly at the deductive end of the inductive–deductive continuum. At the opposite end liesGrounded Theory, a general methodology whichis normally applied to qualitative data. Whenoperationalised, the method shares all the funda-mental characteristics of qualitative research, butgoes further than most qualitative methods in itspotential to generate new theoretical insights.

FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OFQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Patton (1980) sees qualitative methodologiessharing three fundamental characteristics,namely: a holistic view; a philosophy of natural-istic inquiry; and an inductive approach to dataanalysis. By contrasting these three character-istics to a traditional positivist approachemphasising hypothetical deductive logic,experimental designs and quantitative measure-ment, the philosophy and assumptionsunderlying qualitative research emerge.

Holistic

While some research phenomena lend them-selves to clear dissection and analysis, othersrequire to be researched within their totality.Traditionally, positivist research approaches seekto isolate variables and to manipulate themwithin a controlled environment. However, morerecently it has been recognised that humanbehaviour and organisational systems are oftenbetter studied in their totality, allowing allfactors to be considered and for a completeunderstanding to be gained. In managementresearch, where strategy is cross-functional andtherefore multi- and inter-disciplinary, a holisticapproach or an open focus can be particularlyrelevant.

Naturalistic

Positivists view social phenomena to be objec-tively determined, capable of quantifiable

measurement and best analysed at a distance soas to avoid subjective human bias. In qualitativeresearch, more emphasis is placed upon inves-tigating phenomena in their naturally occurringstates. For the naturalist the world is sociallyconstructed, and in order to collect data withinthat world the researcher needs to get close to thedata and acknowledge interaction between dataand data collection methods. Easterby-Smith etal. (1991, p. 24) point to the naturalistic philoso-phy underlying the phenomenological approachto social science research as follows:

Hence the task of the social scientist shouldnot be to gather facts and measure howoften certain patterns occur, but to appre-ciate the different constructions andmeanings that people place upon theirexperience. One should therefore try tounderstand and explain rather than searchfor external causes and fundamental laws toexplain their behaviour. Human actionsarise from the sense that people make ofdifferent situations, rather than as a directresponse from external stimuli.

Inductive

Whereas positivist approaches seek to testhypotheses based on gaps in theoretical knowl-edge, qualitative research places less emphasison testing theory and more on generating newtheory. Qualitative research typically employsdata collection instruments that generate in-depth and open focus insights from smallsamples, for example, through various forms ofin-depth interview and observation techniques.Within highly inductive research lies the notionthat by at first disregarding the substantiveliterature and therefore carrying fewer pre-conceived ideas, the researchers mind will bemore open to what is really happening withinthe research situation, getting closer to infor-mants’ concerns and uncovering how problemsare processed.

The authors’ current research sets out touncover real-life processes of hotel brand inter-nationalisation and emphasises all threequalitative characteristics. It adopts a holisticview largely because hotel brands survivethrough the suitability of their structures andoperations incorporating human, physical and

J. Connell and A. Lowe166

© 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. PROGRESS IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH, VOL. 3, 165–173 (1997)

technology dimensions. A naturalistic philoso-phy is evident through an ongoing search toexplain strategy formulation and implementa-tion processes from the knowledge, experiencesand attitudes of the people directly involved. Itsinductiveness is based firstly upon a pre-under-standing gained largely through previousempirical research, see for example Connell(1992, 1994); and secondly upon a reliance ondata collection and analysis techniques whichachieve depth and maintain an open focus.

BACKGROUND AND ESSENTIALCHARACTERISTICS OF GROUNDEDTHEORY

Background to the Method

Created in the 1960s by American sociologistsGlaser and Strauss, Grounded Theory has beentraditionally confined to sociological studies, aselection of which are presented in Glaser (1993,1994). Initially, Glaser and Strauss (1967) dealtmainly with the philosophical and theoreticaldimensions of the methodology. Some time later,a second text by Glaser (1978) sought to explainthe methodological process and its specific tech-niques in more detail.

Both texts provide a high level of conceptualdensity and use jargon which is difficult for non-sociologists. Recognising this situation, othersincluding Charmaz (1994) and Stern (1994)sought to distil the method to its essentialmeaning and to give more practical insights fromtheir own sociological studies. Although nevercommonly used in management research, aware-ness of the method now appears to be on theincrease and Grounded Theory is beingemployed within areas such as administration(Creswell and Brown, 1992) and in marketing(Teare et al., 1994). The method has been broughtmore to the attention of management researchersthrough method texts such as Gummesson(1991), Easterby-Smith et al. (1991) and a paperby Lowe and Glaser (1995). Included in thesecond volume of Glaser (1995) there are anumber of management research-basedGrounded Theory studies.

For readers unfamiliar with orthodoxGrounded Theory research it is important tounderstand two main issues. First, the basicphilosophical approach which underpins the

theory. The Grounded Theory analyst believesthat the social organisation of the world isintegrated. The Grounded Theorist’s job is todiscover these processes of socialisation. There isno need for preconceived theorising because allthe theoretical explanations are already present.Second, the role of data in the evolution of theorycreation. To understand the processes of social-isation the research has to go beyond unitanalysis and move towards process analysis. TheGrounded Theory analyst transcends both theresearch agendas of the professional researchcommunity and the contextual data. He does thisby revealing and communicating the conceptualissues which are of importance to those in thesubstantive area of study which lies buried in themass of data. In order to do this the researcherhas to be able to recognise a number of differentindicators, which when synthesised, are able toexplain most of the variation in the data.

This process of recognition is greatly enhancedby the degree of theoretical sensitivity theresearcher possesses. Most creative peoplealready have this talent which enables them tomake leaps between their intellect and intuition.Glaser (1978) suggests ways in which this latenttalent can be activated and then enhanced. Sinceall is considered data in Grounded Theory it isinappropriate for it to be used as a kind of proofof a theory; rather it is used as an occasionalillustration of the emerged theory as is necessary.Below is a distillation of the method’s threeessential characteristics. Later, the authors’ appli-cation of the method is discussed and issuesrelating to operationalisation are further criti-cally evaluated.

Essential Characteristics

Firstly, Grounded Theory sets out to discovernew theoretical insights and innovations andshuns traditional logical deductive reasoning.This approach is vividly demonstrated by theway in which it uses literature. Rather thanreview the substantive literature first, GroundedTheorists use and integrate the substantive lit-erature at a time when the inductive process islargely finished. However, this does not meanthat no new reading takes place until theresearch is complete. Rather, the researcherdevelops his theoretical sensitivity so that hecultivates a feeling of how theory is put together.

Generating Grounded Theory from Qualitative Data 167


He achieves this by reading a great deal, but inareas drawn from contexts a long way from thesubstantive field of current study. If theGrounded Theorist does not do this he will havedifficulties in understanding how to conceptua-lise and integrate his data. As a result of thisinductive logic, data analysis may lead theresearcher into less familiar or even unfamiliarfields, and in doing so may provide opportuni-ties for multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches.When complete, new theories can be tested intraditional hypothetical deductive style.

In terms of conceptual perspective and focus,Grounded Theory recognises varying degrees ofopenness. For example, existing theories whichare empirically grounded may be used to informthe research agenda, but they should not be usedto force data into preconceived codes and cate-gories. The theoretical bias of the researcher isalso recognised, but largely as a force forenabling him to ask questions of a theoreticallysensitive nature. Because of its inductive nature,Grounded Theory is easier to operationalise thanmethods which require the forcing of data intopreconceived structures.

Secondly, data collection and analysis occursimultaneously as analytical interpetations, anddiscoveries shape ongoing data collection. Whencodes and categories are first created, theresearcher generates hypotheses about what theymean and how they inter-relate. This involvesmaking conscious, discriminatory and inductivechoices in selecting which leads to follow andwhich new data to collect. The analysis movesforward through a combination of techniqueswhich are employed in a cyclical or non-linearfashion. The overall process is kept on aninductive track by holding conceptual develop-ment embedded in the data rather than extanttheory.

Thirdly, Grounded Theorists set out to dis-cover basic social psychological processes whichare contained within basic social psychologicalstructures, which people have created as theirmeans of survival. The researcher looks forconditions under which the process occurs orvaries and ultimately uncovers the propertiesand the consequences of that process. It dealswith process analysis at a fundamental human ororganisational level, uncovering basic social pro-cesses in such areas as coping with ill health(Mullen, 1978), death (Maxwell, 1994), family life

(Stern, 1978), occupational mobility (Pape, 1964)and small business survival (Lowe, 1990). Inthese sociological studies it attempts to clarifyand conceptualise ambiguous group and indi-vidual behaviour patterns.

One of the most clearly explicated examples isthat of Bigus (1972), who used the method tostudy the home-delivery milk business. Hefound that the main problem for delivery per-sonnel was the cultivation of relationships withcustomers. Recognising this as the essentialproblem, he set out to uncover how relationshipswere operationalised and to develop this processtheoretically. His study uncovered some funda-mental tactics for developing trust in consumerrelationships. Bigus was then able to theoret-ically sample the process in other commercialservice settings and to move his conceptualisa-tion from the substantive to a more generic orformal theoretical level.

THE ANALYTIC PROCESS

In Grounded Theory, data analysis and theorygeneration are guided by a set of procedureswhich reflect the non-linear nature of the methodand cause elements of each to overlap. Theessence of these procedures is now clarifiedunder five main headings taken from Glaser(1978): theoretical sampling, theoretical coding,the constant comparative method, theoreticalmemos and theoretical sorting.

Theoretical sampling

Theoretical sampling is the process of datacollection for generating theory, whereby theresearcher jointly collects, codes and analyses thedata and decides what data to collect next andwhere to find them. This is done in order todevelop theory as it emerges. The researcherusing theoretical sampling has to follow wherethe data leads him. This is accomplished byskilfully using coding, theoretical memos andthe constant comparison method described inthe orthodox Grounded Theory texts (Glaser andStrauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978). A brief resume ofthis is given below. The reader is cautionedagainst following the unorthodox text of Corbinand Strauss (1990) which results in forcing thedata rather than letting it emerge.

Data is typically analysed from transcribed



interviews and from field notes such as thosegathered through participant observation. Codi-fication starts by open coding which involves thewide-ranging fracturing of data by isolatingsignificant incidents such as events, issues, pro-cesses or relationships and labelling them usingrespondent or researcher expressions. Opencodes are termed substantive codes because theycodify the substance of the empirical data so thatit can be sorted and organised. Open codingstays close to data and provides a more literalreduction of it. It can be contrasted to the moreselective and directional theoretical coding thattakes place later when greater focus has beenachieved and when data is being conceptuallyreconstructed.

Theoretical coding

As incidents are compared, it becomes possibleto define similarities, dissimilarities and inter-relationships across the data. When an adequatelevel of familiarity has been achieved, the task isto meaningfully link these incidents togetherthrough theoretical codes. Theoretical codes aredefined as ‘the conceptual models of relation-ships that are discovered to relate the substantivecodes to each theoretically’ (Glaser, 1992, p. 27).Theoretical codes allow the researcher to con-ceptually group or cluster open codes into largertheoretical categories. They may originate frommore theoretically driven open codes or from anew conceptualisation of the data. The shift ofperspective from the descriptive to the con-ceptual requires the researcher to be able toengage both his intuition and intellect. Whenfully elaborated, theoretical codes simplybecome subsumed within categories alongsidethe empirical incidents or indicators they repre-sent.

The Constant Comparative Method

Theoretical categories are not created on a singlestep basis, but rather through a process oftentative conceptualisation whereby categoriesare created and then theoretically sampled to seehow they fit across new data. Categories aretherefore redefined as relationships clarify. Byconstantly comparing the data and by lookingfor negative occurrences of relationships it iseventually possible to elaborate and integratedata to the point where no new evidence occurs

within a category. A well-defined categoryshould have explicitly stated properties whichhelp to delineate inherent causes, conditions andconsequences. As categories become saturatedby evidence, they form a foundation on which toask further questions about the underlying pro-cess. At this stage the researcher can comparecategory to category and check meaningfulliterature to see whether what has emerged fitsor confounds existing theory.

Theoretical Memos

Theoretical memos are described as ‘the theoriz-ing write up of ideas about codes and theirrelationships as they strike the analyst whilecoding’ (Glaser, 1978, p. 83). They are the meansto abstraction and ideation and can be usedcontinually through the Grounded Theory pro-cess. Initially they may be as short as onesentence, but as the analysis moves on they areupdated and developed. Memos can be createdfrom a descriptive narrative that is a distillationof empirical codes. One of the importrantdevices for detecting the emergence of conceptsis the use of indicators within theoretical memos.Indicators are vital because they highlight theinstances of various properties and categorieswhich are occurring directly from the data. It isthe accumulation of indicators which enables theresearcher to know when data saturation hasbeen achieved. Memos can be labelled to reflectthe theoretical codes and categories that theyrefer to. When fully developed, they move intothe final stage of analysis which is theoreticalsorting.

Theoretical Sorting

Having completed the empirical analysis of dataand the conceptual development of categoriesthrough conceptual coding and elaboration cap-tured in memos, the researcher is now in aposition to sort memos into batches and to linkthem up so as to create a theoretical outline of theconnections across his categories. The processserves to increase the focus of the emergingtheory as relationships are delimited, categoriescollapsed and made more theoretically explicit.

The task is to determine a hierarchy ofrelationships and to prioritise the category orvariable which is truly central to the process andwhich other variables operationalise. Core varia-



bles account for most of the variation in a patternof behaviour. Collapsed categories simplybecome properties of the new larger categoriesand are placed within a hierarchy, reflecting theircentrality in the larger process. Theoretical sort-ing points the researcher to situations where twodifferent codes are being used for the sameprocess or where the same code is being used fordifferent processess. As sorting comes to an end,the researcher is in a position to write up hisfindings for publication.

APPLYING GROUNDED THEORYMETHODOLOGY

Background to the International HotelIndustry

The large-scale internationalisation of the hotelindustry is a relatively recent phenomenon. Inthe early years, internationalisation involvedbrands such as Hilton and Intercontinental whofocused then on a relatively small numbers ofinternational business and leisure travellers.Today, however, more mass market, middle- andlower-level hotels brands are being internation-alised, but these focus more on national markets.Such expansion strategies typically involve mul-tiple franchise agreements within a singlecountry, comprising new build properties andhotel conversions. Alternatively and more com-monly in the UK, master franchise agreementsare used involving the conversion of a nationalbrand or even an international brand withnational coverage.

Franchising is a common market entry methodbecause it can provide local operators withimproved brand recognition, superior hoteldesigns and a link into a large-scale reservationsystem. The franchisor receives royalties basedon local accommodation sales and takes a fee forservices provided. By expanding market cover-age the franchsior achieves greater internationalawareness and an increase in the flow of reserva-tions into his system. The relationship isformalised through an agreement which spe-cifies the parties legal and operationalobligations, and forms a basis for maintainingthe coherency and consistency of the servicebrand in international markets.

The current and predominant researchapproach in this area reflects the popularity of

macro- and micro-economic paradigms focusingupon such topics as industry structure, mergersand acquisitions, global market conditions andanalyses of international hotel portfolios. Thisresearch, however, takes a different approach byattempting to uncover the real-life process ofbrand expansion. Through in-depth interviewswith managers of UK franchisees, the process ofinternationalisation is revealed through theirexperiences. Interviews were conducted withfive directors, five general managers and sevenstaff members. Interviews with directors andmanagers typically lasted between 1 and 2 hoursand were fully transcribed, while those with staffwere summarised.

Two companies are involved. The first hasrecently converted from one international fran-chise system to another and operates two hotelbrands under a master franchise agreement. Thiscompany is orientated towards the businesstravel market, provides a greater range of ser-vices and attracts a small but comparativelylarger international clientele than the secondcompany. The second company has convertedfrom a single national brand to offer threeinternational brands through a master franchiseagreement.

The Research Process

Having eventually gained access to one of onlyfour research relevant companies, open focusinterviews were conducted with the first set ofrespondents. The interview tapes were thentranscribed as quickly as possible in order toconstantly compare data before the second visitto Head office. The transcribed interviews wereopen coded by giving each aspect of the data alabel and a numerical tag which simply reflectedthe order in which it appeared within theinterview text. After two further attempts atbreaking down the data, descriptive distillationsof each code were written up and similaritiesand inter-relationships across codes within eachinterview were provisionally identified.

After open coding the data, it was possible totentatively group open codes into 14 moreconceptually informed categories. The labelsgiven to categories originated mainly from opencode labels which were considered broadenough in scope to catch other related codes, andat the same time give some indication of what



appeared to be the most substantive theoreticalissues. The remaining categories were givenlabels based on more standard concepts, forexample, ‘product standardisation’ and ‘measur-ing brand standards’. For organisationalpurposes, each category was allocated a letterand tagged with the initials of relevant respon-dents.

At this stage it had become easier to separatetechnical data from conceptually rich data and toget some idea of the main problems in theprocess. The tentative generation of more theo-retical categories helped to focus the next inter-views on more internally meaningful issues suchas the relationship between franchisee and fran-chisor and the respondents’ desire to operatewith a high degree of autonomy. The second setof interviews were then transcribed, open codedand analysed using many of the categoriescreated from the first interview set.

Now that fieldwork with the first companywas complete, time was taken to write up morefocused distillations of the data within eachcategory on an interview by interview basis. Itbecame possible to write up theoretical memosmore formally and to observe a smaller numberof distinctive themes within and then acrosscategories.

Having achieved greater focus, managers fromthe second company were interviewed. It wasclear that the scope of this company’s franchiserelationship was much narrower than the first,although similar issues were appearing. Theinternationalisation process appeared to be fun-damentally based on the way thefranchisee–franchisor relationship had beenestablished and then formed over time. The datagenerated from these interviews fell within asmaller number of the original categories.

At this stage, fieldwork had generated some40,000 words of data and sufficient evidence hadbeen uncovered to saturate all the significantcategories. The next task was to sort thesecategories and further develop the memos tocreate a more focused, coherent and theoreticalset of interrelationships. This meant focusingfurther on the more central issues and demotingless significant aspects. By sorting memos andthe categories they represented and throughfurther selective coding it was possible toregroup incidents and to reform categories. Bynow the core variables and their reconceptu-

alized categories began to emerge. The researchshows that many of the traditional benefitsassociated with international franchising do notapply within these national contexts. Theresearch highlights transatlantic differences inmanagement culture and hotel industry conven-tions, showing that national franchisees play apivotal role in determining how the franchiserelationship is formed and the way in whichservices are delivered. A more detailed accountof the study’s findings are published in Connell(1997).

Having utilised Grounded Theory in a fairlyregular tourism and hospitality managementsetting, a number of methodological issuesemerged.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Theoretical Sensitivity

Grounded Theory is a beguilingly simple meth-odology which can only be successfullyundertaken if the researcher has a highly devel-oped sense of theoretical sensitivity. Theoreticalsensitivity is the ability for the researcher tomobilise both the intellect and the intuitionwithout forcing theoretical explanations from thedata. Novice Grounded Theory researchers needto recognise this and build time into theirresearch schedule to accumulate theoretical sen-sitivity prior to their research endeavour. Glaser(1978, p. 78) recognises that Ph.D. students maynot have the same amount of time for coding andtheoretical elaboration as large research teams,and accepts the need to move more quicklytowards selective coding.

Theoretical contamination

In Grounded Theory, pre-understanding maybecome a barrier to finding the true meaning ofthe data, especially when expertise gainedthrough previous research or managerial experi-ence tempts the researcher into premature orpreconceived selective coding. Yet pre-under-standing often helps researchers to gain access tocompanies and to achieve credibility with mana-gerial respondents. Such expertise may also helpto elicit greater theoretical meaning from thedata. However, where pre-understanding isfunctioning to block conceptual analysis, there is



a need for the researcher to achieve a state ofopen mindedness which can overcome individ-ual preconception.

Access limitations

The constant comparison of data works on thebasis that small amounts of data are first col-lected and analysed so that emerging categoriescan shape ongoing data collection. TraditionalGrounded Theory studies involve the researcherentering and exiting the field on a regular basis.However, access restrictions common to man-agement research can limit opportunities fortheoretical sampling. Where possible, research-ers should try to achieve regular or sustainedaccess agreements prior to data collection.

Level of Analysis

Traditionally, Grounded Theory is used toresearch informal sociological processes ratherthan more formalised corporate relationships.The level of any analysis will reflect the extent towhich problems and behaviour are formallyrecognised and explicitly stated. For example,respondents will vary in the extent to which theyunderstand their own behaviour and are able toaccurately articulate their thoughts. In mana-gerial settings such as the head office, problemsand behaviour patterns are often highly forma-lised and explicitly stated. Teasing out hiddenagendas may prove difficult where commercialconfidentiality is a high priority or where there isa reluctancy to declare more implicit internalmanagement dynamics. Researchers shouldtherefore take care to achieve as deep a level ofanalysis as possible by selecting suitable datacollection methods.

CONCLUSION

Grounded Theory is judged by its ability togenerate theories which fit with the social realityof the process under study and which work inexplaining the major variations in behaviour. Itprovides explicit links between data and theoryand therefore contributes a greater level of rigourand focus than more intuitive and descriptivequalitative methodologies. When used for thefirst time, data analysis procedures can be rathercumbersome, but once familiarity has been

achieved the method becomes more manageable.When utilising Grounded Theory in tourism andhospitality management settings, researchersshould consider issues relating to theoreticalsensitivity, theoretical contamination, access lim-itations and analytic level. In particular theyshould think hard about their ability to sustainthe mental energy necessary to generate theoryfrom descriptive narrative and field notes.Researchers may face difficulty in casting offtheir preconceptions, especially in the earlystages of data analysis when the meaning of datais unclear. Gaining sustained access is also ofcentral importance as the analytic techniqueswork best when the researcher is able to choosewhen to enter and exit from the field. However,if these criteria are met, the method can createsubstantive and formal theoretical insights fromtourism and hospitality management contexts.

REFERENCES

Bigus, O. E. (1972), The Milkman and his customer: acultivated relationship, Urban Life and Culture, 1,131–165.

Charmaz, K. (1994), The Grounded Theory method: anexplication and interpretation, in Glaser B, (Editor),More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader, MillValley, CA: Sociology Press, 95–115.

Connell, J. M. (1992), Branding hotel portfolios, Inter-national Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement, 4, 1, 26–32.

Connell, J. M. (1994), Branding strategies for food andbeverage operations, in Davis, B., and Lockwood, A.(Editors), Food And Beverage Management: A Selectionof Readings, London: Butterworth-Heinemann,48–59.

Connell, J. M. (1997), International Hotel FranchiseRelationships: UK franchise perspectives, Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management(in press).

Cresswell, J. W. and Brown, M. L. (1992), Howchairpersons enhance faculty research: a groundedtheory study, The Review of Higher Education, 16, 1,41–62.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Lowe, A. (1991),Management Research — An Introduction, London:Sage.

Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery ofGrounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research,Chicago, IL, Aldine.

Glaser, B. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, Mill Valley, CA:Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1992), The Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis,



Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. (Editor) (1993), Examples of Grounded Theory:

A Reader, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. (Editor) (1994), More Grounded Theory Meth-

odology: A Reader, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. (Editor) (1995), Grounded Theory: 1984–1994,

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, Vol. 2.Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Manage-

ment Research, London: Sage.Lowe, A. (1990), The Familial Economic Unit — Small

Business Survival, Glasgow: Glasgow Universityunpublished Ph.D.

Lowe, A., and Glaser, B. (1995), The potential ofGrounded Theory for the development of relation-ship marketing, in Glaser, B. (Editor), GroundedTheory 1984–1994, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press,671–686.

Maxwell, E. K. (1994), Expressing awe and fading out,in Glaser, B. (Editor), Examples of Grounded Theory: A

Reader, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 163–194.Mullen, P. D. (1978), Cutting back after a heart attack:

an overview, Health Education Monographs, Fall.Pape, R. (1964), Touristry: a type of occupational

mobility, Social Problems, 11, 4.Patton, M. Q. (1980), Qualitative Evaluation Methods,

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Slattery, P. (1983), Social scientific methodology and

hospitality management, International Journal of Hos-pitality Management, 2, 1, 9–14.

Stern, P. (1978), Stepfather families: integration aroundchild discipline, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 1, 2,50–56.

Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. (1990), The Basics ofQualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques, Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

Teare, R., Mazanec, J., Crawford-Welch, S., and Calver,S. (1994), Marketing in Hospitality and Tourism: AConsumer Focus, London: Cassell, 44–70.



Generating grounded theory from qualitative data: the application of inductive methods in tourism...

Documents

Transcript of Generating grounded theory from qualitative data: the application of inductive methods in tourism...