Developing the core principles of responsible knowledge management (rKM): Section 3.2.2 – Grounded theory extrapolation

This article is Section 3.2.2 of Chapter 3 of a series featuring my Master’s thesis The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM.

Suddaby¹ advises that “Grounded theory is an interpretive process that depends upon the sensitivity of a researcher to tacit elements of the data or meanings and connotations that may not be apparent from a mere superficial reading of denotative content.” Thus, complementing the integrative literature review (ILR), this thesis employs the grounded theory method^2,3 to study a range of individual cases to extrapolate from them the conceptual framework of rKM. This approach enables a comparative analysis of impressions of rKM presented in the academic literature, identifying recurring themes, contradictions, and emerging theoretical directions. The inductive nature of grounded analysis allows this thesis to remain open to discovery.

Until now, the term inductive approach⁴ has been consistently used as originally conceived to be the core of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, as paraphrased in Bryant and Charmaz⁵). The inductive approach is a process of reasoning whereby patterns and concepts are derived from the data itself, without a prior theoretical burden. Later interpretations of grounded theory, however, veer towards the term abduction⁶, which can be understood as a process of reasoning that involves generating the most plausible explanation for observed data by also drawing on existing theoretical knowledge. Everything is data but data is not everything; the roles of imagination, serendipity, abduction, and reflexivity are central to the process of interpretation.

Unsurprisingly, the inductive approach has drawn critique for its apparent disregard of existing theory and for the implied notion that researchers can approach data without prior assumptions. This is in part an oversimplification as Bryant and Charmaz argue: even the early versions of grounded theory contained “abductive implications,” despite not using the term explicitly.

In this thesis, the potential of abductive reasoning for grounded theory is acknowledged. While attempts are made to remain attentive to emergent patterns in the data, it is recognised that theorising involves a creative interplay between observation and prior conceptual understanding. Therefore, this thesis draws on abduction, allowing for interpretive leaps that are guided but not constrained by existing theoretical insights relevant to the research topic. Lempert⁷ puts it succinctly when she argues for the importance of familiarity with the literature of the substantive area of study: as researchers, we must understand “the current parameters of the conversation” we “hope to enter.” As a researcher with a humanist and philological background, I am particularly attentive to language and its contextual framing, how meaning is shaped by broader conceptual narratives, such as in the case of responsibility within KM discourse.

Following O’Reilly, Paper, and Marx’s synthesis⁸ of the five key tenets of grounded theory (guided by Glaser and Strauss original vision), this thesis seeks to explore the emergent concept of rKM and build a theoretical framework from the qualitative data presented in the academic literature. These nonlinear tenets, illustrated in Figure 5 below, are used iteratively to extract codes, categories and concepts from the data and relate them into a meaningful framework.

The constant comparative method represents the backbone of grounded theory⁹. It means the “simultaneous collection, coding and analysis” of the data for the purpose of generating a theory. This process is key to revealing the theoretical underpinnings embedded in the data. Theoretical coding refers to the process of sensemaking whereby the researcher groups examples that appear similar and considers the “properties, dimensions, and boundaries” of each category, ultimately leading to the discovery of the core category. Theoretical sampling orients the discovery process along the lines of the emerging theory, and theoretical saturation is achieved when new data stops being illuminating, essentially verifying the full extent of the discovery. Theoretical sensitivity demonstrates the researcher’s “understanding of the field”, it speaks to the ability to recognise what is pertinent to the emerging theory and what is not.

Achieving a level of acceptable rigour is often assumed to be problematic with qualitative research and grounded theory especially. This issue is extensively discussed, for example by Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton¹⁰, who present one type of methodology to address the challenges. According to Gioia and colleagues, one starts with acknowledging the different aims of quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative research aims to capture “general, less well-specified notions” of the “qualities that describe or explain a phenomenon of theoretical interest.” Concepts precede and differ from constructs that are well-specified and measurable, and therefore of interest to quantitative research.

Figure 6 illustrates a step-by-step pathway from raw data (e.g., academic articles, or other qualitative sources) to the development of a new conceptual understanding. Starting on the left, the process involves identifying informant-centric terms and codes, the language and categories used by the original authors. These are then interpreted through researcher-centric lenses into higher-order themes, concepts, and dimensions, distinguishing between nascent concepts (new or emergent) and existing ones (those already found in the literature).

This analytical movement from first-order (informant) to second-order (researcher) constructs is at the heart of the Gioia methodology. As the analysis evolves, the researcher continually cycles between data and theory, refining the interpretations and identifying patterns and structures that allow them to synthesise a new concept. The final concept (visualised as a unified blue box) reflects both empirical grounding and theoretical insight, articulated through the grounded theory method.

This visual and the accompanying approach reinforces the idea that this thesis aims to develop a concept, the emergent phenomenon of rKM. As such, the thesis does not seek to test a hypothesis or apply existing constructs to data. Rather, it follows an inductive-abductive path, seeking to understand how responsibility is framed and envisioned within the recent KM literature. By doing so, this research contributes to the conceptual clarity and theoretical development.

Next part: Section 3.2.3 – Ensuring rigour and validity.

Article source: Koskinen, H. M. (2025). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Knowledge Management (rKM): Identifying and Formulating the Core Principles of rKM. (Master’s Thesis, LUT University).

Header image source: Created by Hanna M. Koskinen using ChatGPT.

References and notes: