Conclusion

Grounded theory was developed in the health and nursing sector by two Americans, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s. Their first book titled The discovery of grounded theory was published in 1967 and focused on studies of patients dying in hospitals. The study was viewed as an alternative response to the paradigms of then predominantly quantitative research. Rather than having a methodology that will test existing theory, grounded theory strives on creating new theory by linking interrelated concepts to offer meaning. Grounded theory offers the opportunity for theory generation from data collected in an inductive study to enable explanation of a phenomenon (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Hence, Strauss and Corbin (1998) defined grounded theory as, “a theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process. In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another”. It promotes presenting ideas from data rather than forcing them on data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Consequently, Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Bryman and Bell (2011) suggested that the grounded theory approach should allow theory to emerge from the data rather than starting a study with a preconceived theory, unless the researcher plans to adjust an existing theory.

A researcher using the grounded theory enters the field open minded, without preconceived ideas of what might be found. Although the proposition of ‘theoretical avoidance’ have been criticised (Goulding, 2002; Lee et al. 2005). The researcher should balance the judgement of prior knowledge and keep an open mind to what will be found in the field. The grounded theory study focuses on concepts to create new theory rather than theory testing. Hence, the goal is to predict or explain a phenomenon based on empirical data, instead of attempting to achieve statistical generality through representativeness.

Furthermore, according to Glaser and Strauss (1967), Strauss (1987), Lee et al. (2005) and Punch (2013), the precepts of grounded theory allow the strategy to be applied in several disciplines. Hence, it offers a different and effective opportunity to furnish new insights for conducting business research (Gummesson, 2000; Pettigrew, 2000; Locke, 2001; Lee et al.

2005). Its many advantages to business research are capturing the complexity of situations as they unfold, links with practice in organisations, facilitates establishing theoretical work in areas that are under researched and with its open ended approach and rigour, it can provide a different view of established fields (Lee et al. 2005; Bryman and Bell, 2011) to allow the validity of a theory building process (Lee et al. 2005).

Since the development of the grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss, different approaches have evolved by several authors to offer different methods of the analytic process: the classic

‘Glaserian’ approach, Strauss and Corbin and the Charmaz approach. Although they all point to theory building, each method offers a different approach to achieving the desired results.

Comparing the original 1967 views of Glaser and Strauss with those of Strauss and Corbin (1990) procedures and techniques and Glaser’s counter reaction indicates what Goulding (2009) calls, “a subtle but distinct differences of opinions between the two authors since its inception”. Hence, Glaser’s response was that the Strauss approach stressed the methods

suggested were highly complex, predetermined categories leading to theory development would be forced. However, Strauss and Corbin (1990) argued that the deep questioning helps to generate many codes that gave rise to data reductions; hence, the reason for additional levels of axial coding.

Furthermore, Glaser (1992) suggested that addressing the research questions at the beginning should be avoided to allow data gathering to assist in generating the research questions.

Conversely, Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggested that research questions can be used at the beginning of a research, so as to allow developing the study stages. Moreover, Glaser (1992) stressed that researchers should focus on a generation of concepts from data, while Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasised on describing the research area under study. In addition, Strauss and Corbin (1998) recommended a review of existing literature, so as to guide the data collection and analysis phase. However, Glaser (1992) frowned upon literature review before embarking on data collection.

Comparative analysis is often used in grounded theory research to generate theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Lee et al. 2005). This is achieved by generating conceptual categories or properties from the available evidence which is then used to show the concept. Furthermore, the analysis is used to generate two types of theory, substantive and formal. Where substantive theory implies developing a pragmatic area of inquiry and formal theory involves theory development for conceptual study. The two theories are grounded in data, then illustrated to depict the phenomena under study (Bryman, 2012).

The literature offers different models to explain business to business branding (i.e. Mudambi et al. 1997; Mudambi, 2002). However, these models were developed and tested using different samples and population or deduced from consumer branding models differ from this present study. Furthermore, to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there is lack of substantive theory to explain the phenomenon of the motor oil branding process. Hence, the application of grounded theory research in this study would enable the emergence of a model instead of a formal theory to describe the nature of branding motor oil in developed and developing economies. As it is suitable for exploration and human interaction research, the grounded theory allowed insights to emerge from the manufacturer to the various segments of the supply chain.

The choice of approach remains with the researcher to determine which approach fits the ontological and epistemological underpinnings. Consequently, the researcher believed that, to undergo the study, one needs a preliminary review of the literature to develop the topic awareness which will lead to understanding the under studied phenomenon. Hence, the researcher adopted the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach as best suited for this study.