2.6. Theory Development
As already stated, grounded theory techniques have guided data analysis and the problems and good practices have been combined with findings and concepts developed (e.g., in private sector research and philosophy with the objective to develop a normative theory that answers the research questions). In the understanding of Strauss and Corbin (1998), a theory is “a set of well developed categories … that are systematically related through statements of relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains some relevant social … or other phenomenon”. Therefore, the central concern was to generate core concepts from the data collected. Especially selective coding was useful as it “develops the theory that best fits the phenomena by identifying a story that reveals the central phenomenon (core issue or ‘core category’) under study” (Baskerville & Pries-Hejeb, 1999). The main conceptual attractor developed from analysis of the field work data was “knowledge entrepreneurship.” Theoretical generalisation involves suggesting new interpretations and concepts or re-examining earlier concepts and interpretations in major and innovative ways (Yin, 1993). Case studies have been particularly important in the generation of new ideas and theories in social science. “Certainly one can develop significant new theoretical innovations and generalisations from good quantitative research, but in practice this has been less likely than in the case of qualitative research”.(ibid p.14). The wide variety of documents, interviews and online information used to construct the case narrative is thought to “expand the foundation upon which knowledge claims in the field are based” (Robey, 1996, p. 403). Additional improvement ensuring the proposition of realistic insights is obtained due to the embedded approach of living and thereby becoming – at least cognitively – a part of the institution. This move away from pre-formatted cognitive research scenarios has been pioneered by e.g. (Hutchins, 1995) “Cognition in the wild”.

Once the individual case narratives had been developed, the insights and phenomena encountered are merged with the experiences and reflections made in the phenomenological action research track of the study. Together, they represent the chapter entitled Cross-Case Analysis & Theory Development. Thereby, it is indispensable to have the researcher serve as a subject expert filter and select the most essential phenomena because of the sheer mass of information. Zellweger Moser (2003, p. 68) states: “Writing a grounded theory requires a clear analytic story and a sense of what parts of story the writer wishes to convey”. Phenomena and aspects found in the various cases are translated into a detailed outline referring to the many sources and codes developed during the analysis process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 249). Locke (2000, p. 116) states that it is especially important to provide authenticity, which is established through the validation processes described in section 1.4.2. and 1.3.4, and achieving a solid data theory coupling, which is pursued by depicting the situation in the various cases in regards to the relevant phenomena. Hereby, each theory element is illustrated with “live” excerpts from the setting, e.g. indirect quotes , observations or documents.

“This showing needs to be connected to the telling, when the significance of the detail is explained” (Zellweger-Moser, 2003, p. 68). Following Locke (2000) and Zellweger-Moser (2003), observations regarding the theory frame are presented first, a summary of the whole theory is then given, and lastly all elements are developed theoretically and under consideration of other sources, as well as considering the situation in the universities investigated.

During this process, it is inevitable that subjective assumptions of the researcher influence the interpretation of data and importance of phenomena. For this reason, the researcher’s position has been made explicit in Annex A. It is also documented in the position developed in the theoretic background, e.g. regarding the exceptional non-market understanding of universities.



[ Back ]