Using the Classical Grounded Theory Rather Than the Strauss And Corbin Approach in Accounting and Management Research Abdullahi Usman Bello Accounting and Finance Department, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK a.bello@northumbria.ac.uk Abstract: Grounded theory is an inductive methodological approach used in social sciences to achieve the objective of generating a theory. Unfortunately, when the technique is used by some researchers in accounting and management it is either incorrectly conducted or the term is wrongly applied as a label to a poorly conducted substitute. This arises from the failure to adhere to its core procedures due partly to contradictions within the main approach, ignorance and perceived difficulty in implementing the technique. This article proposes a return to the classical approach, which is less prone to confusion and contradiction. It provides a guide to how the method should be carried out in the field to produce a robust research contribution. Keywords: classical grounded theory, accounting, grounded theory, management accounting 1. Introduction The grounded theory approach is a popular methodology in social sciences. There are several research papers in accounting and management that have adopted the methodology, but on a closer look, most of the papers are either not following the core tenets of the approach or are merely invoking the name to justify their research approach. This is a particular concern for some accounting and management researchers such as Gurd (2008), Jones and Noble (2007) and Suddaby (2006). The reasons for this are many, as will be discus later in the paper, but the evidence from the literature suggests that researchers in accounting and management field are abusing the approach, and this may have a grave consequence on findings that may be relied upon to influence policies and promote a particular narrative. This paper suggests that the problem associated with using grounded theory in accounting and management research is mainly as a result of researchers using the Strauss and Corbin approach and, therefore, recommends a return to the classical approach to ensure that the theories discovered fit, work and are relevant. 2. Grounded theory approaches Grounded Theory has had a tortuous journey since its invention by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s with the publication of their book titled the Discovery of Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Melia, 1996). It was published to challenge the then dominant deductive and quantitative approach to research that was viewed as the only legitimate form of research (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Walker & Myrick, 2006). The authors were particularly concerned with the promotion of grand theories of some famous scholars to the exclusion of discovering innovative theories using inductive methods(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Grounded theory, according to Glaser (2008), was, therefore, developed in opposition to grand theories of the time that were not necessarily grounded in data. At the time of its publication, it was revolutionary (Walker & Myrick, 2006), and because of that it gained popularity especially within the field of sociology where it originated. The methodology was particularly popular in nursing research, which was the research area of the founders, but it soon spread to other fields including accounting and management research (Smith, 2011). The two founders of the technique have authored many books using the methodology with the most prominent one being the Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 2005). Other books by the authors include Time for Dying (Strauss, 1968) and Status Passages (Glaser, 1971). The relationship between the two would however become frosty after Strauss teamed-up with Corbin to write books on the methodology that Glaser viewed as a complete departure from their original conception of the approach (Glaser, 1992). Other scholars also agree that Glaser’s approach is closer to the classical approach (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Cooney, 2010; Heath & Cowley, 2004) with Annells (1996) suggesting that the Strauss and Corbin approach has changed the philosophical underpinning of the approach to a constructivist paradigm, 41