Discussion Paper No. 141
Discussion on the Grounded Theory Approach on
Business Resilience Study
Weng Xuanbin, Takaura YasunariNov. 4, 2020TOHOKU MANAGEMENT & ACCOUNTING RESEARCH GROUP
Discussion Paper

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND

MANAGEMENT TOHOKU UNIVERSITY

27-1 KAWAUCHI, AOBA-KU, SENDAI,
980-8576 JAPAN

Discussion on the Grounded Theory Approach on Practicing
Business Resilience Study in China and Japan

Weng Xuanbin, Takaura Yasunari
Introduction
The business world needs resilience more than ever. Nevertheless, research deployed by the
Grounded Theory methodology mainly focuses on the field of medical-related disciplines andsociology (Rolle-Berg & Linden, 2020; Carmichael & Craayestein, 2020; Garratt & Patching2019), while leaving business sectors rarely considered in this subject. As clinicians figure out
problems of the human body by direct observation, health indicator measurement, the groundedtheory can apply to conducting first-hand-data-required business resilience research. Nevertheless,could the grounded theory have developed to the current stage, regardless of its subsystem, being
applied to business resilience researches as the way of waiving medical and sociological research?
Does there exist a possibility that a specific, grounded theory can be further evolved for businessresilience researches in East Asia social context? Such questions are remaining covered, and thisresearch would initiate to act as an ice-breaker to them.
Literature Review on the Grounded Theory
Origin: Classic Grounded Theory
Grounded Theory, as known as GT, was initially proposed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 by theirfamous work of THE DISCOVERY OF GROUNDED THEORY: strategies for qualitative
research. In the very beginning of the book, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 1) defined 'We believethat the discovery of theory from data-which we call grounded theory-is a major task confronting
sociology today, for as we shall try to show, such a theory fits empirical situations, and isunderstandable to sociologists and layman alike.'. Then followed by the purpose of the theory
generated from data as 'Most important, it works-provides us with relevant predictions,explanations, interpretations, and applications.' (Glaser & Strauss 1967, p.1). Meanwhile, Glaser
and Strauss (1967) highlighted the ideal circumstance to apply grounded theory in social
research-comparative analysis.
Moreover, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p.101) introduced several approaches for constantcomparative methods while researchers are doing qualitative analysis derived from different
objectives as below as well as in Figure 1:
1. In case that the mission of a researcher is purely transforming the qualitative data intoquantifiable one, the data process approach is to code the data at first and then proceed toanalyze.
2. In case that the task of a researcher is to formulating theoretical thoughts, the coding process
and analyzing process can take place simultaneously because a researcher will renew theconceptions of the theory that would be generated while extracting the qualitative data.
3. To reveal a more structured theory without the adversities of the previous two types, a mixed
approach that consists of 'an analytic procedure if constant comparison, the explicit coding
procedure of the first approach and the style of theory development of the second.' (Glaser &Strauss 1967, p.102).
4. To uncover a theory that is holistic, accurate, generalized, and specified to a phenomenon,
analytical induction is applicable.

Figure 1. Use of Approaches To Qualitative Analysis
By Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 105)
Furthermore, Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced to field and documentary as the dominantsources about qualitative data while highlighting the possible incompatibility of the
field-originated sources and library sources. While discussing the credibility of grounded theory,
Glaser and Strauss (1967) believed that grounded theory enables researchers and their readers to
observe the research questions closely. Audiences would be more likely to be persuaded byresearchers with structured data analysis and logical instructions of the theoretical frameworks. Asof the current stage of the classic grounded theory, Glaser (2020) asserts the original picture by
re-emphasizing that classic grounded theory research is raised if a researcher preconceives‘sociological interest’, representing a consequence of data-forcing.

Data Coding
As Glaser and Strauss (1967) stated in their ground laying work, coding, as the substantial
procedure for forming reliable theories, needs to be selected with caution. Hence, it is necessary toobtain knowledge on the categories of coding approaches, the applicability of various coding
approaches, and supportive method(s) to boost the efficiency of the coding process, if there areany. Luckily, Saldaña, an experienced qualitative researcher, provides his insights on coding
techniques by his work of The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.
Coding, as a process of interpreting data, outputs code(s). Saldaña (2016, p. 4) stated that theforms of qualitative data could be presented sorts of formalities, such as 'interview transcripts,
participant observation field notes, journals, documents, open-ended survey response, drawing,artifacts, photographs, video, Internet site, e-mail correspondence, academic and fictional
literature, and so on.'. Then the author put the definition of code right after finishing theillustration on qualitative data. Saldaña (2016, p. 4) defined 'code is a researcher-generated
construct that symbolizes or "translates" data (Vogt, Vogt, Gardner, & Haeffele, 2014, p.13) andthus attributes interpreted meaning to each datum for following purposes of pattern detection,categorization, assertion or proposition development, theory building, and other analytic
processes.'.
Before introducing the coding methods systematically, Saldaña (2016) enlightens that during thecoding process, computer-assisted qualitative data analysis, as known as CAQDAS, could provide
significant efficiency and convenience for qualitative researchers. AnSWR, AQUAD, ATLAS.ti,
Nvivo, and some other additional computer-based programs are recommended by Saldaña (2016,p. 31). Referring to detailed coding approaches, Saldaña (2016) summarized them under several
methods, as shown in Figure 2.
Nevertheless, for the better performance of the coding stage, Saldaña (2016) emphasizedresearcher should select coding method(s) depend on the attributions of the research questions,and it is less likely that fixed package(s) of coding method(s) could be applied in distinct
researches. Moreover, the number of coding method(s) utilized in qualitative researches shall belimited. Confusion, ambiguousness, and contradiction, for some cases, would appear during thecoding process, thus losing accuracy of the node(s) if more than six approaches were deployed inindividual research. Though, on the other hand, most of the coding techniques exhibited in Figure
1 can be used to code qualitative data like interview transcripts, the researcher should be advisedthat additional constraints may exist. The threshold to weaving a theory from qualitative data isnecessary to ensure the validity of researches. Hence, Saldaña (2016) suggested that in every
single research, in case of more than ten interviews were launched, doing qualitative research
implanted by grounded theory could be encouraged.

Figure 2. First Cycle and Second Cycle Coding Methods
By Saldaña 2016 (p. 68)

Challenge on Classic Grounded Theory: Constructivist Grounded Theory
Though derived from the classic grounded theory, however, the constructivist grounded theoryshows variations. Charmaz (2014) expresses that rather than stress on data collection, those who
utilize the grounded theory and simultaneously value the importance of constructing the result ofdata can be identified as a utilizer of constructivist grounded theory in terms of epistemology.
Meanwhile, Charmaz (2014) articulates that researchers are encouraged to possess
pre-conceptions on their research questions for a better understanding of research reality.
Moreover, constructivist grounded theory enables researchers to have flexible views on various
issues. To the latest review, Charmaz (2016, p.299) summaries the critical differences of theconstructivist grounded theory to the classic grounded theory as follows:
1. Assuming a relativist epistemology;
2. Acknowledging your and your research participants multiple standpoints, roles, and realities;
3. Adopting a reflexive stance toward your background, values, actions, situations, relationships
with research participants, and representations of them;
4. Situating your research in the historical, social, and situational conditions of its production
Discussion on the Both Grounded Theories
There is a significant debate between the two subbranches of GT-classic grounded theory andconstructivist grounded theory (O' Connor, Carpenter & Coughlan, 2018). Since the year 2000,
Charmaz, as an advocator of constructivism grounded theory, shown obvious distinctions withrepresentative advocator and one of the founders of grounded theory originated from thediscussion on epistemology, as O' Connor, Carpenter & Coughlan (2018, p. 91) explained as a'branch of philosophy that explores the origin, nature, and methods of knowing and the limits ofhuman knowledge.' against Glaser as the followings:
1. Epistemology. Classic grounded theory suggests its epistemology as elastic because it
enables the researcher to utilize full sorts of data resources while remaining objectivity. Whileconstructivist grounded theory argues its epistemology as a researcher will construct the resultsof researches other than purely uncovering, which further enhances the validity between the
movements and judgment.
2. Researcher. Classic grounded theory prefers that researchers should not incept any
preoccupation before they start the research process, while constructivist grounded theory obtains
an opposite view.
3. Timing of doing literature reviews. Corresponding to the two antithetical attitudes of theclassic grounded theory and constructivist grounded theory, the ideas of the timing of doing
literature review are likewise. Classic grounded theory encourages the researcher to postpone
reviewing previous works to prevent researchers from any pre-thoughts. Accordingly,
constructivist grounded states that it is impractical that researchers can be free from any
preconceptions.
4. Setting research questions. Classic grounded theory discourage researcher from clarifying
their research questions beforehand; instead, it advocates the researcher to come up withapproaches to stimulates research participants to raise their voices. As for applying constructivist

grounded theory, researchers should concrete their research questions before kick-off the phaseof data collection.
5. Interview techniques. Advocators of Classic grounded theory believe that interviews
supported by clear-guided manuals could facilitate data bias while constructivist groundedtheorists propose that interview guidelines would help novice researchers validate their researchquestions.
6. Coding process. Qualitative research deploys classic grounded theory has two major coding
stages of substantive coding and theoretical coding. However, constructivist grounded theory
obtains three stages: initial coding, focused coding, and theoretical coding. Meanwhile, the focusof the classic grounded theory is 'first identifying the relationship between the categories and thecore category and then identifying the relationship between categories' (O' Connor, Carpenter &Coughlan 2018, p. 98). As for constructivist grounded theory, it cares about reconciling andintegrating the concepts from data.
Although it seems that the classic grounded theory is highly incompatible with constructivist
grounded theory, other researchers, quoted by O' Connor, Carpenter, and Coughlan, highlighted
that the two styles of grounded theories are not necessarily against each other because it isunrealistic to launch researches by purely depend on one style of the grounded theory (Jacoby,
Jaccard & Acock, 2011).
Besides, the advocator of the classic grounded theory Glaser has debated on the constructivist
grounded theory supported by Charmaz, directly and indirectly. On the one hand, Glaser (2012)
criticized the constructivist grounded theory cannot be considered as a grounded theory approach
because he articulates that grounded theorists do not construct stories, and grounded theorists only
reveal the objectivity of the emergence from data. On the other hand, Charmaz defends her groundby proving the solidity of research results and the function of explicating core research inquiries insome disciplines (Charmaz, 2017; Charmaz 2020).
Data Collection of Business Resilience Researches in China and JapanTo carefully identify, discuss, and examine factors that could impact business resilience under acrisis from the perspectives of business strategies, business resilience, and CSR, field research isnecessary. In the case of finished researches, business visiting, including interviews with senior
managers, is the appropriate method to fit qualitative research. In other words, conducted
researches practice case study. The range of research participants includes members from big
businesses and SMEs from China and Japan, while micro-businesses are not in the discussion
scale. Further, business field research is less likely to launch in the real business world without
help from personnel who obtains certain kinds of business connections. Hence, two experienced
persons contributed to contacting research participant businesses in both countries.
Referring to the methodology for practicing this qualitative research, a mixed package of specifictechniques from classic grounded theory and constructivist grounded theory is applied to ensure
academic credibility and the feasibility of business resilience research in China and Japan.
Applying the Grounded Theory Constrained by Management Research Reality

As concluded in the previous sections, grounded theory with different branches is attributed to
distinctions on full awareness of utilizing it. In order to grasp the essential points of thedifferences between the classic grounded theory and constructivist grounded theory, the below
table, refined from the previous sections, reveals the distinctions.
Nevertheless, researchers, particularly those who focus on business management in China andJapan by deploying grounded theory as their research methodology, should keep in mind thelimitation of the above two types of grounded theory highlighted as follows:
1. Both types of grounded theory were established and evolved in the context of western businesssociety.
2. It is controversial if a business researcher could deploy all prerequisites of one of theabove-grounded theory in China and Japan.

Classic GT
Elastic, utilize a wide range ofdata with objectivity.

Constructivist GT
Construct results of data otherthan only collect data.

Researcher

Should not have any
preoccupation before start the
research process.

Should have some
preoccupation before start the
research process.

Timing of Reviewing
Literature

Encouraging researchers todelay their review work toprevent raising
preoccupations.

Setting Research Questions

Discourage researchers toclarify the questions to raisethe voice of research
participants.
Preventing usage ofclear-guided manually to
avoid data bias.

Impractical for a researcher tobe free from any preoccupation.
Reviewing previous works is
acceptable even before
kicking-off the research process.
Concreting the researchquestions before data collection
is preferred.

Epistemology

Interview Techniques

Coding Process

Two major codings,
stages-substantive coding andtheoretical coding.

Using clear-guided manual help
to valid research questions.
Caring for reconciling andintegrating the concepts from
data.

Table 1. Differences between Classic GT and Constructivist GT
Based on the deployment practices of grounded theory in China and Japan for business resilience
research, proposing such limitations is based on qualitative management research. In China, inmost cases, potential research participants would require researcher(s) to offer the research
proposal of the research project(s) with clear illustration and instruction, or at least with generalresearch guidelines. Then, they first proceed with those documents to judge whether they will
involve the project(s) on behalf of their business organizations or not, followed by examining theappropriateness of contents of the questionnaire(s). In other words, before kicking off the datacollection, researcher participants, or interviewees, demand researcher(s) to be clear about the
research; otherwise, research participants would be easily confused about the research,
considering the research(s) is/are with low validity and organization, and finally refuse tocooperate. Further, regarding the research data collection methods, if researcher(s) prefer theparticipant(s) to provide qualitative data via the way of the face-to-face interview(s), a participant
would go-through the research questionnaire(s) before the formal data collection process. A
researcher needs to clarify the participant(s) doubts about the questionnaire(s) to enhance theclarity of the questions and ultimately improve the data validity. Moreover, the process of datacollection would operate more smoothly once supported by an on-site research participant visit toconfirm the research scenario, as well as checking the participants' understanding are without
noticeable deviation from the supposed route.
While practicing grounded theory on management study is an even more challenging research
objective to complete. While research on Japanese businesses, business personnel are connected to
the researcher by senior personnel; otherwise, it would be demanding that research inquiry could
be accepted. At the early stage of preparing supportive research documents for data collection, a
researcher must prepare and introduce the research proposes, research questionnaires, and researchmethods to research participants in the first place. Then Japanese research participants would
decide if they will join in research or not.
However, while doing business research, data could derive from the same source, but withdifferent methods (e.g., reading a part of the interview script and reading that script with playing
the corresponding record), more controversial data could be interpreted by the researcher. Hence,the significance of data extraction by different data styles with objectivity is concrete as a creed.
As the reality of doing qualitative management research back up by the grounded theory as a
research methodology in China and Japan, the timing of doing literature reviews, the timing of theresearch question set, and interview techniques are not subject to the researcher. Instead, theresearch reality would force the researcher to set everything before they initiate their journey ofdata collection.
As for the coding process, the only principle aims to deliver findings with overall research picture
grasping. In other words, the coding process of classic GT is not essentially against the one ofconstructivist GT; they could complement each other.
Grounded on the research reality, neither the whole system of classic GT nor constructivist GT isthe optimal method of GT. Thus, a mixed version with the following technique details of GT is
introduced for this research based on the feasibility of doing qualitative business management
research in China and Japan, as depicted in Table 2.

Epistemology

Mixture of Classic GT and Constructivist GT
Elastic, utilize a wide range of data with objectivity.

Researcher

Should have some or specific preoccupation before start the
research process.

Timing of Reviewing
Literature

Reviewing previous works is mandatory before kicking-off theresearch process.

Setting Research Questions

Concreting the research questions before data collection isnecessary.

Interview Techniques

Using clear-guided manual help to valid research questions.

Coding Process

Practicing two major codings stages-substantive coding andtheoretical coding, while caring for the reconciling and integrating
the concepts from data simultaneously.

Table 2. Contents of Mixture of Classic GT and Constructivist GT
Proposing Grounded Theory for Business Resilience Researches in China and Japan
As concluded in the previous section, a hybridized version of GT has been applied in this research.
Nevertheless, this research finds that researchers' social connections would influence the data
quality during the holistic interview journey while applying the GT approach. For example,
researchers funded by the government could reach much more critical data than researchers who
do not obtain such an advantage. In other words, researchers share close connections with researchinterviewees who are more likely to discover ‘hidden’ stories in businesses.
Moreover, social connections could affect the researcher's role, allowing researchers to connectbusiness with ambiguity. In the research practices of this dissertation, the author contacted thestudied businesses with senior personnel in the business field in both countries. Hence, by adding
the researcher's identity based on reality, a new type of GT approach called the Neutral Grounded
Theory is proposed in this research, as shown below:

Epistemology

Neutral GT
Elastic, utilize a wide range of data with objectivity.

Researcher

Should have some or specific preoccupation before start the
research process.

Timing of Reviewing
Literature

Reviewing previous works is mandatory before kicking-off theresearch process.

Setting Research Questions

Concreting the research questions before data collection isnecessary.

Interview Techniques

Using clear-guided manual help to valid research questions.

Coding Process

Practicing two major coding stages-substantive coding andtheoretical coding, while caring for the reconciling and integrating
the concepts from data simultaneously.

Social Relationships

Interviewers (researchers) will be more likely to acquire
information with more secrets if they share close relationship withinterviewees. Relationship closeness dependent.

Table 3. Contents of Neutral Grounded Theory
Conclusion
By briefly reviewing the two branches of the grounded theory and concluding the differences
between the two by giving a table, this paper portrays the research landscape and research reality
in terms of business resilience research in China and Japan. According to the authors' qualitative
research, we spotted that the grounded theory, as a research methodology, can be used in the fieldof management study, or at least on business resilience research, in China and Japan. The authors
propose a revised type of grounded theory in a hypothetical version based on their researchexperiences.
Reference:
Carmichael, T & Craayestein, M. 2020, ‘Rolling with the Punches: Clinician Resistance in a
Managerial NHS Hospital’, Grounded Theory Review, vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 47-64.
Charmaz, K. 2014, Constructing grounded theory 2nd ed, London: Sage.
Charmaz, K. 2016, ‘Constructivist grounded theory’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 299-300.
Charmaz, K. 2017, ‘The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry’, Qualitativeinquiry, vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 34-45.
Charmaz, K. 2020, ‘“With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice researchand critical inquiry in the public sphere’, Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 165-176.
Garratt, D & Patching, J. 2019, ‘Manipulative Dominant Discoursing: Alarmist Recruitment andPerspective Gatekeeping’, Grounded Theory Review, vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 100-118.
Glaser, B. G. 2012, ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory?’, Grounded Theory Review, vol. 11, Issue 1,
pp. 28-38.
Glaser, B. G. 2020, ‘Getting Started’, Grounded Theory Review, vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 3-6.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative
research, New York, Adline de Gruyter.

Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J. & Acock, A. 2011, Theory construction and model-building skills:
a practical guide for social scientists, New York, NY: Guilford.
O'Connor, A., Carpenter, B., & Coughlan, B. (2018). An Exploration of Key Issues in the Debate
Between Classic and Constructivist Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory Review, vol. 17, Issue. 1,
pp. 90-103.
Rolle-Berg, R & Linden, K. V. 2020, ‘Strengthening Devotion: A Classic Grounded Theory on
Acceptance, Adaptability, and Reclaiming Self, by Parents of Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorders’, Grounded Theory Review, vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 7-29.
Saldaña, J 2016, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edition, SAGE.
Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., Haeffele, L. M., & Vogt, E. R. 2014, Selecting the right analyses foryour data: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, Guilford Publications.