Harmonizing Theory and Experimentation: Unveiling the Potential of Multi-Grounded Theory

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Sport Management, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

3 Department of Sociology, Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Türkiye

4 Department of Physical Education and Sport, Institute of Health Science, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey

10.22034/sms.2024.140646.1301

Abstract

Research in the field of sports sciences undergoes significant turmoil and instability, stemming from both quantitative and qualitative research methods. This turbulence prompts the expansion of theoretical and empirical knowledge in the domain. Qualitative research, which can be approached through positivist or critical lenses, necessitates researchers to articulate their research philosophy and epistemological stance upfront. Notably, the methodological approach, rooted in intuitionism for analyzing social phenomena, undergoes similar shifts in sociology and sports management. This approach not only invites critique but also spawns numerous theoretical underpinnings. To counter reductionist tendencies in theoretical frameworks, the Multi-Grounded Theory (MGT) emerges, aiming to harmonize intuitive and reductionist analytical methods within the framework of Hegelian thesis and antithesis. Consequently, authors employing MGT move beyond the pure inductive approach in Grounded Theory (GT) by explicitly incorporating external theories. By bridging the gap between theoretical frameworks and empirical data, MGT promises to offer a holistic understanding of sports-related phenomena, empowering researchers to generate innovative theories and drive the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International journal of scientific research, 7(1), 438-441.
Bruce, C. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and its interaction with analysis in a grounded theory study. International journal of qualitative methods, 6(1), 51-68.
Bruhn Jensen, K., & W.Jankowski, N. (1991). A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. Routledge press.
Cronholm, S. (2004). Illustrating Multi-Grounded Theory: Experiences from Grounding Process. 3rd European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, 29-30 April, 2004, Reading University, Reading, United Kingdom,
Cronholm, S. (2005). Multi-grounded theory in practice–A review of experiences from use. QualIT–Challenges for Qualitative Research.
Freeman, S. (2018). Utilizing multi-grounded theory in a dissertation: Reflections and insights. The Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1160-1175.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.,[e-book] Aldine de Gruyter. In.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Glaser. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.
Goldkuhl, G. (2000). The validity of validity claims: An inquiry into communication rationality. Univ., Centrum för studier av människa, teknik och organisation.
Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2003). Multi-grounded theory–Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory. 2nd European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Reading University, Reading, UK,
Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory: Toward multi-grounded theory. International journal of qualitative methods, 9(2), 187-205.
Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon press.
Kelle, U. (2007). " Emergence" vs." forcing" of empirical data? A crucial problem of" grounded theory" reconsidered. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 133-156.
Lind, M., & Goldkuhl, G. (2006). How to develop a multi-grounded theory: The evolution of a business process theory. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 13(2).
Merriam-Webster. (2010). Ground. Merriam-Webster online dictionary. In  Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ground
Ngulube, P. (2018). Overcoming the difficulties associated with using conceptual and theoretical frameworks in heritage studies. In Handbook of research on heritage management and preservation (pp. 1-23). IGI Global.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS quarterly, 309-340.
Pashaie, S., Abbaszadeh, M., Abdavi, F., & Golmohammadi, H. (2023). Improving the Validity of Mixed and Multi-Methods through Triangulation in New Sports Management Research. Research in Sport Management and Marketing, 4(2), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.22098/RSMM.2023.12593.1216
Pashaie, S., & Perić, M. (2023). The Future of Sports Tourism in the Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Developing a New Paradigm Model. Journal of Tourism Futures, Accept. www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/jtf
Seaman, J. (2008). Adopting a grounded theory approach to cultural-historical research: Conflicting methodologies or complementary methods? International journal of qualitative methods, 7(1), 1-17.
Sinclair, M. (2007). A guide to understanding theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Evidence-Based Midwifery, 5(2), 39-40.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques.
Urquhart, C. (2001). An encounter with grounded theory: Tackling the practical and philosophical issues. In Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends (pp. 104-140). IGI Global.