Abstract

Theories indigenous to the information systems discipline are scarce. The Grounded Theory Method (GTM) specifically aims to create theory in domains where none are. But although its use in information systems research increased over the last two decades, the number of grounded theories created did not. This could be because either GTM is not “right” for the information systems discipline or that it is not “done right”. The paper investigates both options and concludes firstly that the method is “right”: it is a general method, capable of accepting any kind of data and works well with information systems, which are defined as actor networks of technology and people. There is, however, reason to suspect that GTM is not “done right”. What GTM’s core tenets are and how to apply them seems often misunderstood. Two core tenets are defined: (a) the specific rigour of its data collection and analysis; and (b) the maxim of only using concepts as the unit of analysis for developing grounded theory. In conclusion, GTM’s paradigmatic position (or, more accurately, its lack of one) is discussed.