Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

With a growing number of users, social media is revolutionising communication, knowledge sharing, and interaction globally. It is increasingly attracting research interest as a discourse arena, data repository, and communication platform. Grounded theory, a qualitative social science research method, is gaining popularity in social media studies. This scoping review aims to map the grounded theory research in the field of social media. We used Levac et al.’s extension of Arksey and O’Malley’s systematic five-stage methodological framework for scoping reviews to identify, analyse and synthesise the literature. Social Sciences Citations Index (Web of Science), ProQuest Central and EBSCOhost EJS database were searched to identify empirical research published between 2017 and 2024, from which we selected 30 publications. We found that grounded theory is used as a stand-alone method, in mixed-methods studies or its techniques are integrated into qualitative research. Grounded theory has been widely applied to various social media topics to explore users’ experiences and behaviours on these platforms. Social media researchers have used grounded theory to break new ground, identify processes, develop substantive theories, or for pragmatic reasons. The main limitation was the narrow focus of the exploratory method. Very few articles articulated their grounded theory method. Social media researchers considering using or adapting the grounded theory method, processes or techniques are encouraged to thoughtfully consider and clearly report the methodological underpinnings of their research. This will not only assist readers in assessing rigour and interpreting findings but also contribute to the evolution of the grounded theory method itself.

Keywords

grounded theory social media qualitative methodology

Introduction

For better or worse, humankind’s dominion over the planet is largely based on our ability to “cooperate both flexibly and in very large numbers” (Harari in Ji, 2023). This phenomenon is particularly evident in social media (SM), which has become a powerful tool for large-scale human interaction. SM refers to a group of internet-based applications that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Unlike traditional forms of communication, SM offers flexibility in terms of audience size, personalisation, and content format. It supports multi-modal communication, incorporating a mix of sounds, images, text, videos, and even virtual/augmented reality, and can be tailored to meet individual privacy and efficiency needs (Ji, 2023).

With over 5 billion users (We Are Social Ltd, 2024), SM has become ubiquitous, transforming how people communicate, seek and share knowledge, and interact. Its rise as a novel platform for communication, a vast repository of user-generated data, and an arena for dynamic discourse has increasingly drawn the attention of researchers (Halaweh, 2018). While early SM studies attempted to understand the new phenomenon as well as its challenges and opportunities (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), more recently, researchers have turned their attention to its sociological aspects, in particular its ability to provide access to hidden and hard to access groups (Dosek, 2021; Halaweh, 2018; King et al., 2014).

Grounded Theory (GT), a qualitative social science research method, has gained traction in the field of SM studies. The emergence of GT in SM studies emerged around 2012 when Urquhart and Vaast (2012) began theorising about social media environments. Prior to this, GT had gained attention in the related field of information technology (IT), particularly for its usefulness in explaining situationally-based IT processes (Urquhart et al., 2010) and as a systematic and flexible way of generating theory from data (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Urquhart & Fernández, 2013).

This scoping review aims to map the GT research in the field of social media. In doing so, it provides a reference point for researchers interested in using grounded theory techniques, processes or methodology in their own social media research. In the introduction, we offer researchers new to GT an entry point to its vocabulary, methodology and processes.

For beginners, GT is probably best thought of as a prolific multicultural and multigenerational family of research methods with philosophical inheritances (Bryant, 2017) and hybridisations. Consequently, its underlying beliefs, language and practices are evolving, which means that, to some extent, there is no definitive shared common language (Bryant, 2017). To illustrate this point, the term GT itself can refer to a philosophically situated method, a logical research process, a constellation of tools or techniques (Bakker, 2019) or an explanation of abstract concepts (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014) as they relate to the research question. Consequently, our task in this introduction is to create a common language for this article, introduce the main members of the GT family tree and explain common GT processes.

In this article, we use the term “GT method” to refer to a “theory/methods package” that includes a “set of epistemological and ontological assumptions, along with concrete practices” (Clarke & Star, 2008, p. 117) used to undertake research and cannot be interchanged (Clarke et al., 2018) thoughtlessly. The “GT process” refers to an interlinked chain of rigorous analytical practices, and “GT techniques” are analytical devices that serve the process (for a list of GT techniques, refer to Table 2). Finally, “a grounded theory”, or the product of the GT method and process, explains the relationships between abstract concepts and categories (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014) inherent in participant experiences.

GT Method Family Tree

The first generation of GT, known as Classic GT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), typically holds positivist assumptions (Sebastian, 2019; Singh & Estefan, 2018). Researchers using this method view the empirical world objectively and spend considerable time collecting and triangulating data (Artinian et al., 2009). This makes Classic GT suitable for generating theories with explanatory, predictive, and transferable power (Artinian et al., 2009; Birks & Mills, 2011). It is well-accepted in fields familiar with quantitative research (Bryant, 2017), like information systems (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991).

Strauss and Corbin (1990) introduced second-generation GT, which adopts pragmatist epistemology and interpretivist ontology (Sebastian, 2019). This approach links the beliefs and actions of individuals solving everyday problems (Morgan, 2020; Morse et al., 2021) and is influenced by Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interactionism (Charmaz, 2014; Schwalbe, 2020). It uses narrow research questions and focuses on participants’ actions. Unlike Classic GT, pragmatists view reality as indeterminate and conditional (Charmaz, 2014), making findings explanatory but not necessarily transferable or predictive.

Second-generation GT theorists, including Charmaz and Clarke, aimed to promote social justice (Clarke, 2012). They introduced constructivism, emphasising that research is not neutral (Charmaz, 2009). This methodology views research findings as tentative and highlights the researcher’s role and interpretation (Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014; Nagel et al., 2015).

The GT methods family continues to expand and evolve, bringing exciting new “theory/method package” additions such as Transformational GT (Redman-MacLaren & Mills, 2015). Novel methods may offer tools that interweave SM data into analyses, handle the vast quantity of data available online, or help us make sense of this new flexible style of mass communication.

Hallmark GT Processes

The field of GT values flexibility and encourages its theorists to develop their own theory/methods packages and processes for generating theory (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser et al., 1967). Describing the many different GT processes and procedures would take a textbook, and readers are encouraged to consult the many available on the topic. For simplicity, we broadly address the commonalities among GT processes, irrespective of their philosophical underpinnings.

The first hallmark of the GT process is that an explicit hypothesis or theoretical framework is unnecessary to commence the empirical research (Bakker, 2019; Charmaz, 2014), meaning that it is popular among researchers drawn to broad questions about unexplored social terrain such as “How is social media used by health organisations as a method to communicate with the public?”.

The second hallmark of the GT process is that the analysis combines inductive logic with abductive reasoning (Bryant, 2017; Charmaz, 2014). This means that while the analysis moves from specific isolated accounts or observations to make broader generalisations (i.e., induction) (Bryant, 2017), it also involves tacking backwards and forwards between the data collection, analysis and conceptualisation. In other words, as the initial data is analysed, hypotheses emerge that direct the collection of new data or re-evaluation of old data (Clarke, 2014; Morgan, 2020). Abductive reasoning incorporates the third hallmark of GT, known as comparative analysis or “constant comparison”. This step pushes research from the empirical to the theoretical (Glaser et al., 1967). It involves comparing all the analytical material and raw data to explore similarities, differences, variations and surprises (Hallberg, 2006, as cited in Charmaz, 2014) and create more abstract concepts that encapsulate them (Bryant, 2017).

Theory generation is the final hallmark of GT, which we will discuss in this section. While there are nuances between the way different generations of GT understand theory, broadly, a grounded theory is an explanation of the relationships between abstract concepts and categories (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014) as they relate to the research questions. Abstractions are created incrementally from the data analysis until one or more concepts explain the situation being researched (Bryant, 2017). During the final stages of data analysis, known as theoretical coding, researchers may draw on schemas, concepts or frameworks from broader literature to help sharpen their analysis or tell a unifying story about the data (Charmaz, 2014).

Aims

The aim of this scoping review is to map the application of GT in the field of SM research. By doing so, it provides a reference for researchers who are either new to GT or seeking to apply its techniques, processes, or methods in social media studies. Specifically, we aim to offer insights into how GT methods are used to investigate the unique, fast-evolving digital landscapes of social media platforms.

The review addresses the following questions:

1. What SM topics are being studied?

2. What are the indications for and limitations of using GT in SM studies?

3. What type of GT methods are used in SM studies and why?

Methods

Study Design

As constructivists, we were drawn to the scoping review methodology, over other types of reviews, for its epistemological refutation of absolute truth (Mak & Thomas, 2022; Thomas et al., 2020), and its enthusiastic acceptance of the co-creation “of new knowledge through connections between the research team, the team’s knowledge and past experiences, the data and the topic of interest” (Mak & Thomas, 2022, p. 561). Consequently, we approached the review iteratively and refined the research questions and inclusion/exclusion criteria considering the insights we have garnered from each other and the publication reviewers.

We used Levac et al.’s (2010) extension of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review framework to identify, analyse and synthesise the literature. This involved (1) crafting the search question, (2) balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process, (3) study selection, (4) data extraction, (5) incorporating numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results and consideration of implications.

The reporting protocol in this review uses the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews PRISMA ScR (Tricco et al., 2018).

Eligibility Criteria

Articles included in this review report using a GT approach in SM research. Peer-reviewed journal articles were included if they were published between 2017–2024, written in English and available in full text online. The search terms are detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Eligibility Criteria Search Terms.

Qualitative and mixed-method studies were included. Papers were excluded if they did not report on a data collection method, did not include empirical research, or did not report on grounded theory methods or methodology. Table 1 summarises the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
1	Related to the grounded theory approach in social media	Unrelated to the use of the grounded theory approach in social media
2	Includes empirical research	Did not include empirical research
3	Peer-reviewed journal articles	Non-peer reviewed. Also, excluded conference papers, book chapters, editorials, and grey literature
4	Written in English	Other languages
5	Articles with data collection methods and methodology specified	Did not specify the data collection method and methodology
6	Characteristics of quality and rigour were specified	Did not specify quality and rigour characteristics
7	Problems and limitations of the grounded theory approach were discussed	Did not discuss the problems and limitations of the grounded theory approach
8	Includes published 2017–2024	Excludes published <2017

Information Sources and Data Collection

The lead author implemented the initial search in June 2022 in three electronic databases: Social Sciences Citations Index (Web of Science), ProQuest Central and EBSCOhost EJS database. For comprehensiveness, a follow-up search was conducted in June 2024 to identify any additional articles published after the initial search.

Selection of Sources of Evidence

The search query yielded 323 articles. Citations were imported into Endnote and screened for duplicates. 83 articles were removed. Next, each article was screened manually by the lead author for the term “grounded theory”. Articles that used the word “grounded” in a context unrelated to grounded theory were excluded (n = 6). Next, the research methods and citation lists were screened for reference to which grounded theory methodology influenced the study.

Quality Appraisal and Data Extraction

Quality appraisal is not routinely required for scoping reviews (Pham et al., 2014); however, because we were primarily interested in analysing how articles used GT, quality was appraised by considering the detail in which GT (including its limitations) was explained. Author 1 constructed a quality appraisal tool (Table 2), listing common techniques employed in GT as well as its limitations. Author 1 and Author 3 reviewed each article against this tool and coded it as very low, low, medium, and high (Table 3), as determined by the number of identified techniques. After a discussion between Author 1 and Author 3, articles coded “very low” and “low” were excluded (n = 210). Table 4 displays the quality appraisal rating for the articles shortlisted for the review.

Table 2.

Codes Used in Excel to Demonstrate the Characteristics of Grounded Theory.

Grounded theory techniques
1	Line-by-line coding or open coding or initial coding
2	In vivo coding
3	Axial coding
4	Focused or selective or theoretical coding
5	Memo writing
6	Theoretical sampling
7	Simultaneous data collection and analysis
8	Constant comparison
9	Inductive, deductive, abductive reasoning
10	Appropriate for understanding phenomena, exploratory
11	Theory generation
Grounded theory limitations
a	Sampling reliability
b	Generalisability in exploratory studies
c	Other limitations

Table 3.

Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources of Evidence.

Screening rating	Quality and rigour
Very low	Elements of grounded theory were vaguely described (or not described)
Low	Some elements of grounded theory were described
Medium	Provided a good description of the use of grounded theory
High	Provided an in-depth description of the use of grounded theory

Table 4.

General Characteristics Found in 30 Shortlisted Articles Rated Medium and High.

Author (year)	Data gathering technique	Grounded theory techniques used	Ground theory limitations	Rating
Adorjan and Ricciardelli (2021)	Interview	3,4,10	None	Medium
Alfonzo (2021)	Interview	1,3,4,6,9,11	a	Medium
Brooks et al. (2021)	Interview	1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9	None	High
Casey et al. (2021)	Interview	4,8,11	a	Medium
Cavusoglu and Atik (2021)	Interview	1,3,4,10	None	Medium
Chaker et al. (2022)	Interview, review, field observation, video	1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11	None	High
Davids and Brown (2021)	Focus group, interview	1,3,4,6,10	None	High
Easton et al. (2018)	Interview	1,4,6,7,8	a	Medium
Etemadi et al. (2022)	Observation, interview	1,4,6,8,10	None	High
Etter & Albu (2021)	Interview	1,3,4,8,11	None	High
Farhangi & Alipour (2021)	Text	1,3,4,8,10,11	a	High
Fincham (2021)	Twitter and Facebook	1,3,4	None	Medium
Hameleers (2020)	Twitter and Facebook	1,3,4	None	Medium
Hameleers (2022)	Interview	1,3,4	None	Medium
Huang et al. (2021)	Interview	1,3,4,6,10,11	None	Medium
Kasperiuniene (2018)	Interview	1,4,6,8	a	High
Ma et al. (2022)	Social media post	1,3,4,6,8,10	a	High
Mkono (2019)	Interview	1,3,4,7	a	High
Moore et al. (2019)	Interview	1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11	a	High
Nguyen et al. (2020)	Focus group	1,4,6,7	a	Medium
Sarikakis and Winter (2017)	Blog	1,3,4,8	None	Medium
Scheibling (2020)	Interview	1,3,4,8	None	Medium
Hu et al. (2021)	Focus group	1,3,4,5,8,9,10,11	a,b	High
Thomson and Greenwood (2017)	Focus group	1,4,5,7,10,11	b,c	Medium
Throuvala et al. (2019)	Social media post	1,3,4,5,6,7,8,10	None	High
Tripathi and Verma (2018)	Interview	1,3,4,6,8,11	b,c	Medium
Yang et al. (2021)	Interview, social media post	1,3,4,11	None	Medium
Zhang et al. (2020)	Interview, social media post	1,3,4,6,9,10,11	None	High
Zhang et al. (2021)	Interview, social media post	1,3,4,6,9,10,11	None	High
Zingg et al. (2023)	Interview, focus group	1,3,8,9,10	a	Medium

The final shortlist presented in this review consists of 30 articles. Figure 2 summarises the selection process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Figure 2.

Summary of the Identification of Studies via Databases (PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram).

Data Charting Process

Authors 1 and 2 charted data from eligible studies using a standardised data abstraction tool designed for this study. They abstracted data on the study aim, indication for using GT, GT method used [explicitly stated or determined by analytical methods (e.g., axial coding) or references cited (e.g., Glaser and Strauss, Strauss and Corbin, Charmaz)], limitations of the research and contribution to the field (see Appendix A).

Thematic Analysis

The eligible studies were analysed using thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun et al. (2019). This process involved six distinct steps. First, Authors 1 and 2 familiarised themselves with the studies by reading and discussing their content and noting interesting patterns, potential connections, and insights relevant to the research questions.

Second, Authors 1 and 2 began generating inductive codes from the data. While the research questions served as a guiding framework, the authors approached the coding process without preconceived notions about the final outcomes. Coding was performed at both the semantic and latent levels, enabling the exploration of both explicit and implicit meanings within the documents.

Third, from the consolidated codes, Author 2 developed preliminary themes, which were then presented to Authors 1 and 3. They assisted in selecting themes that best told the story about the data.

The fourth and fifth steps involved refining and defining the themes collaboratively to ensure that each theme had a clear definition and boundary.

Finally, during the write-up stage (sixth step), the themes were further refined to ensure they remained grounded in the data and answered the research questions.

Results

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

Each study’s aim, method, method rationale and limitations are presented in Appendix A.

Study Characteristics and Topics

Most articles were published between 2020 and 2022 (n = 21). The 30 SM articles focused on a range of topics that we categorised as primarily risk-related (n = 3), organisation-related (n = 3), celebrity and fashion-related (n = 3), gender-related (n = 2), mental health/psychology/resilience-related (n = 7), sales and marketing-related (n = 3), knowledge sharing and education (n = 2), socio-political (n = 5) and journalism-related (n = 2). See Table 5 for more information.

Table 5.

Study Foci.

Study foci
Risk of SM
Police officers’ perception of risk when using SM
SM impact on employee performance
SM users’ negotiation of privacy violations
Organisational
Generation and leverage of SM among specialists managing higher education SM accounts
Organisations use of SM to engage with the online community
NGOs engagement and relationship building on SM
Celebrity and fashion
Influencer acquisition of celebrity capital
Underrepresented women’s reactions to lack of diversity in the fashion industry on SM
Experiences of viewing fitspiration on SM
Gender
How young urban Vietnamese women present themselves on Facebook
The construction of fatherhood by dad bloggers
Mental health, psychology and resilience
Farming women’s use of SM to mitigate the financial impact of drought
SM mourning
People’s rational and non-rational assessment of habitual SM use
Adolescents’ developing psychological processes and everyday interactions via SM
Formation and development of attachment relationships between users and SM
Mobile SM fatigue
Digital health technologies for peripartum depression
Sales and marketing
Lived experiences of salespeople using SM
SM utilisation by tourism operators and policymakers to enhance destination image
SM-enabled customer co-creation experiences
Knowledge sharing and education
Mechanisms for transforming construction professionals’ intentions to use SM for knowledge sharing
University teacher behaviour in SM environments
Socio-political
Influence of SM algorithms influence on activists’ actualisation of collective affordances
Misinformation and disinformation construction and attribution by politicians and citizens
De-legitimising truth claims of populist politicians and citizens
Donation behaviour and medical crowdsourcing
Africans’ social media narratives of the racially, politically, and historically charged context in which trophy hunting occurs
Journalism
Western news outlets’ values and concerns concerning SM news audiences
Engagement with Instagram news content

Summary of the Results

Broadly, the studies either focussed on people’s experiences of using SM or people’s behaviour on SM. When experiences were the focus, studies tended to collect data through interviews; when behaviours were the focus, they used data from SM.

Fourteen articles were positioned as grounded theory research (Alfonzo, 2023; Chaker et al., 2022; Davids & Brown, 2021; Etemadi et al., 2022; Farhangi & Alipour, 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2021; Kasperiuniene, 2018; Ma et al., 2022; Moore et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Throuvala et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020; Zingg et al., 2023), three were mixed methods research that incorporated grounded theory (Casey et al., 2022; Thomson & Greenwood, 2017; Zhang et al., 2021), nine were qualitative research that used grounded theory processes or techniques (Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2021; Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021; Etter & Albu, 2021; Fincham, 2021; Hameleers, 2020; Sarikakis & Winter, 2017; Scheibling, 2020; Tripathi & Verma, 2018; Yang et al., 2021). Ten used theoretical lenses or paradigms to make sense of their findings (Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2021; Brooks et al., 2021; Casey et al., 2022; Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021; Farhangi & Alipour, 2021; Fincham, 2021; Hameleers, 2022; Scheibling, 2020; Yang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020). See Appendix A for more details.

Main Findings

The findings will be reported under the following headings, which align with the review questions: Indications of using GT in SM studies, Rationales for the GT method and Limitations of using GT in SM studies. We explore each theme below, integrating direct quotes from the articles to illustrate concepts. Where possible, we specify the GT method used in each study. For a detailed breakdown, refer to Appendix A, which provides this information as far as it was discernible.

Indications of Using GT in SM Studies

We identified three reasons why authors chose to use GT for their research projects, which we have labelled breaking new ground, identifying a process/substantive theory and pragmatics. Often, authors cited more than one of these reasons for selecting GT.

Breaking New Ground

The impetus that most authors cited for their studies was, broadly, to break new ground. GT was viewed as an especially relevant approach in…exploratory investigation (Chaker et al., 2022, p. 131), which could be due to a gap or lacuna in knowledge (Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2021, p. 60), the need to extend this stream of (SM-related) research (Brooks et al., 2021, p. 529) or because the researchers wanted to uncover the complexity or nuance of an issue (Etemadi et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Mkono, 2019) such as Davids and Brown (2021) who investigated how organisations use SM to engage with their online community using constructivist GT:

A further constraint is that many studies examine single aspects linked to social media. These narrow foci affect the generalisability of the research results to organisational realities (p. 2)

GT also offered fresh and innovative perspectives (Mkono, 2019, p. 693) to researchers on an established SM phenomenon because the researchers were not stifled by quantitative methodological constraints, especially in theory development for the emerging phenomena of social media (Hu et al., 2021, p. 129). For Mkono (2019), who appeared to employ constructivist GT, it allowed them to foreground non-Western perspectives without imposing an existing (Western) theoretical framework (p. 693). This sentiment was echoed by Ma et al. (2022), who followed Strauss and Corbin’s GT process to explore how enterprise SM affects employee performance in China and Nguyen (2020), who appeared to use constructivist GT to explore the nexus between gender relations and SM, focussing on young urban Vietnamese women on Facebook.

For some, breaking new ground denoted uncovering overlooked (Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021) or marginalised voices (Casey et al., 2022; Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021; Mkono, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020) or examining people’s experiences in sensitive areas (Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021; Moore et al., 2019). Casey et al. (2022), who combined narrative inquiry and (broad) GT in a mixed method study, provide an example in their study on SM use of settler farming women in outback Queensland:

Traditionally women’s work and “individual knowledge and social resilience to stressors like climate and climate change have been unrecognized and rendered invisible” and the personalized, recorded experiences of women working through this current drought are scant (pp. 196–197).

In these situations, one of the allures of GT appeared to be the open-ended nature of the interview process, where participants were given the power to discuss their own experiences and their perceptions (Moore et al., 2019, p. 236) and guide the research with events and experiences that are meaningful to them (Nguyen et al., 2020, p. 178).

Identifying a Process/Generating Theory

Many authors appeared drawn to GT for its suitability in addressing how and why problems (Ma et al., 2022, p. 485) and, relatedly, for the inductive discovery of specific processes and actions (Alfonzo, 2023, p. 427) and to support the generation of theory (Casey et al., 2022, p. 200) and this is substantiated by their research outputs. Some studies culminated in the identification of a social process. For example, Chaker et al. (2022) used Corbin and Strauss’ approach to GT to explore the intersection of inside sales and SM use and found that inside salespeople use social media and firm digital technology resources…to digitally engage with their customers, which ultimately impacts their job performance (p. 134).

Others went further than process identification to advance existing theories. Brooks et al. (2021) did this in their constructivist GT study (which included elements of Corbin and Strauss’ analysis) on SM influencer’s acquisition of cultural capital. They constructed a definitional matrix and conceptual model of the influencer celebrification process and in doing so advance(d) existing theories on the production and reproduction of celebrity (p. 543). Still others created new theoretical models, such as Alfonzo (2023), who use hybridised classic and constructivist GT to study Higher Education marketing specialists’ generation and leverage of SM content. This culminated in an emergent theoretical model (p. 473) that contributed to best-practice standards.

Notably, some authors were particularly interested in drawing out the complexity of issues and commented that GT’s emergent theory was context-specific, detailed, and tightly connected to the data (Mkono, 2019, p. 693), which enabled a holistic theoretical description of social media use (Hu et al., 2021, p. 129). For example, Moore et al. (2019), who used a broad rendering of GT, merged in-depth interview findings with extant literature to create a theoretical model explaining why and how individuals are using (social networking sites), with whom they are communicating, and the bereavement processes inherent in SMM (mourning, p. 232).

Pragmatics

Many authors used GT techniques in their qualitative or mixed-method studies; their reasons for doing so appear multifaceted and sometimes unclear. A few researchers (Casey et al., 2022; Tripathi & Verma, 2018; Zhang et al., 2021) used GT processes in their respective mixed methods studies to move their findings from the empirical to the theoretical. Scheibling (2020) used GT’s abductive reasoning and sensitising concepts as an analytical device in their qualitative document analysis of men’s parental identities, experiences and ideologies on SM.

In other studies, we could not verify why GT techniques were more suitable than any other type of inductive qualitative analysis. Some examples include Sarikakis and Winter’s (2017) use of Strauss and Corbin’s coding process to analyse interviews in their qualitative study on user’s legal consciousness about privacy, Fincham’s (2023) use of open coding in their qualitative study of the values and concerns regarding SM news audience and Thomson and Greenwood’s (2017) use of GT analysis techniques in their Q methodology study.

We also found evidence suggesting that GT was selected because of its conformity with quantitative approaches to research, which are potentially more accepted in the SM field. Ma et al. (2022), who followed Corbin and Strauss’ process, provide an example in their research on enterprise SM use on employee performance:

Furthermore, the grounded theory method has a good balance. It requires researchers to follow strict analytical procedures by a comprehensive utilization of their own empirical knowledge to understand the original materials, so as to achieve the perfect combination of subjective and objective research results (p. 485).

Rationale for GT Method

A variety of articles (e.g., Chaker et al., 2022; Davids & Brown, 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Mkono, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020) clearly articulated why they had selected their approach to GT and how they followed the GT process. Davids and Brown (2021), for example, discuss how Strauss and Corbin’s method assists with organic, rigorous and systematic theory generation in electronically mediated social contexts. However, only two articles explicitly explained GT as a method (i.e., theory/methods package), outlining the philosophical underpinnings for their research.

First, Kasperiuniene (2018) used Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist GT approach, explaining that they chose co-constructivism for their research on collective creativity in social media processes. This was because co-constructivism could be explained as the implication of social interaction, collaborative activity and seeking some sort of convergence, inter subjectivity, or shared understanding (p. 130). Throuvala et al. (2019) also used constructivist grounded theory, explaining it was particularly appropriate for the present study because its relativist epistemology allows for co-construction of theory and meaning by researcher and participants (p. 3). This was relevant to their study because it attempted to co-construct the underlying psychological processes of social media use and the phenomena online (p. 3).

While they did not lean on GT as a method per se, it is worth mentioning that Scheibling (2020) used symbolic interactionism to philosophically amalgamate qualitative document analysis and grounded theory processes and techniques and, likewise, Etter and Albu (2021) used agential realism as a unifying epistemological and ontological lens for their qualitative study combining GT-style inductive analysis and situational analysis.

Limitations of Using GT in SM Studies

Despite authors highlighting GTs ability to draw out the complexity and nuance of a phenomenon, many noted the narrow focus of their exploratory study. This could be because studies were small scale (Casey et al., 2022, p. 208), recruiting relatively few participants. Although researchers’ acknowledged that their sample sizes were appropriate for the GT method, they also observed that accuracy… may be limited by the sample size (Ma et al., 2022, p. 498). Narrow focus also related to the relative homogeneity of participants (Easton et al., 2018; Hu et al., 2021; Kasperiuniene, 2018; Mkono, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2020; Throuvala et al., 2019; Zingg, 2023), as well as the narrow scope of the research (Cavusoglu & Atik, 2021; Hameleers, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Hameleers (2020), who undertook a qualitative content analysis using a range of GT techniques, provides a good explanation of this last point:

This article is not without its limitations. First, we restricted our empirical endeavour to the communication tactics of right-wing populist actors and citizens who are active on certain Facebook platforms. Right-wing populists do not have issue ownership over media critique, and it may be the case that other politicians (left-wing populist, parties in opposition) blame the media for being inaccurate and dishonest (p. 1150).

Chaker et al. (2022) also noted that their results were time-bound:

Although our findings are based on the lived experiences of inside salespeople and sales managers, our interviews were retrospective and occurred at one particular time with each participant (p. 142).

Where these limitations were noted, the authors stated that their findings or theoretical models and frameworks should be treated with caution and could not be generalised to larger populations. They recommended follow-up research with more diverse populations (Kasperiuniene, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020) to enrich the research results (Kasperiuniene, 2018, p. 135), or larger-scale quantitative studies (Huang et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2022; Tripathi & Verma, 2018) to ensure reliability, validity (Ma et al., 2022) and magnitude (Huang et al., 2021), or longitudinal research (Chaker et al., 2022).

Discussion

In this scoping review, we set out to map the GT research in the field of SM studies. We found GT studies emerging across a variety of SM topics, propelled by a need for more exploratory research that unpacks the complexity and nuance of (albeit tentative and narrowly focussed) human or psychological processes. Many researchers also appear to combine GT processes and techniques with other research methods and theoretical frameworks to move findings from the empirical to the theoretical. Finally, we found it challenging to determine which GT method was used because it was infrequently described. While there is much to address here, our discussion will centre on the contribution of GT to SM research and a broader conversation about methodological rigour. On this final point, our intention is not to commit methodological zealotry but to help SM researchers consider and, importantly, report their methodological decisions.

GT appears to have much to offer in the field of SM. First, as a well-established exploratory approach (Chun Tie et al., 2019) with a considered approach to controversial research topics with secrets and silences (Charmaz, 2014), GT shows great promise in mapping the uncharted social territory of SM. From a procedural perspective, GT also brings a rigorous approach to exploratory research. This is unsurprising given that Barney Glaser and Absolom Strauss created GT to bring a systematic approach to qualitative research (Bryant, 2017).

We also observed that SM is a rich data source for GT studies; however, at this stage, it appears mainly to use text-based data. We conjecture that the multi-modal nature of SM may spawn new GT theory/methods packages that interweave sounds, images, gifs, text, videos and virtual/augmented reality into analyses. In the meantime, we refer future researchers to Halaweh’s (2018) guidance on the collection of observational, live, or historical data for GT studies for assistance with such data collection.

An important finding of our review was that it was difficult to identify the specific GT method used in most articles, making it challenging to assess methodological rigour and interpret findings. This issue may stem from publication word-count limits as well as researcher or reviewer practices. While we do not support the “slavish attention to following a narrowly prescribed set of procedures” (Creamer, 2022, p. 43), we assert it is important for researchers to demonstrate a foundational grounding in methodology. The GT theory/methods package provides such grounding, guiding data collection, analysis, and reporting (Bryant, 2017) which is especially important for SM researchers combining new online data collection strategies with GT. Understanding the methodological foundations helps to combine and sequence research in mixed methods designs (Morse, 2016), promoting transparency and aiding critique. Moreover, working through these methodological considerations in this new multi-modal and expansive social environment will evolve GT. We contend that standardising (in broad terms) how the application of GT is described in studies could begin to address these issues.

This finding extends to our observations of the use of a priori theoretical frameworks to guide GT analysis. GT is an emergent research method that tries to avoid undue influence from outside factors such as theories, frameworks and discourses (Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2006). Many GT scholars feel that using a priori theories or frameworks steers the GT study in a particular direction, potentially overlooking important issues (Charmaz, 2020; Clarke et al., 2018). However, others argue that it is appropriate to use a priori theoretical frameworks, particularly those dealing with social construction (e.g., race, class, gender), to assist researchers in managing their views, assumptions and biases (Mitchell, 2014) or to frame and advance the design of mixed methods GT studies (Creamer, 2022). To remain true to the inductive tenets of GT, we encourage GT researchers to use theories and frameworks as “sensitising concepts”. Sensitising concepts are broad ideas that provide initial, tentative thoughts about research topics (Blumer, 1969) and are used in GT to develop ideas about processes emerging from the data (Charmaz, 2014). Sensitising concepts must earn their way into the emergent analysis and be disregarded if they cannot. In other words, they can guide but should not hijack.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Like all research, this scoping review has limitations. First, we undertook this review in 2022 with an update in 2024. It is likely that more studies have been published in the time it has taken to do this review. We also completed our literature search after the first round of database searching, limited our search to English and had relatively narrow search terms (i.e., we searched specifically for the term “social media”, not all the different forms of SM). Therefore, it is likely we have missed some articles; however, there is evidence that when ten or more studies are combined, there is a reduced risk of false conclusions (Nussbaumer-Streit et al., 2018); we found 30 articles.

Although it is not a limitation per se, in line with constructivism, the results of this review have been iteratively constructed through the authors’ lenses. Different reviewers may have constructed the findings in different ways.

This scoping review highlights that GT studies are generally small-scale, time-bound exploratory investigations often restricted to homogenous populations due to the reliance on convenience sampling. As a result, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and should not be generalised to broader populations. Future reviews could explore how many GT studies are subsequently expanded into larger-scale or longitudinal projects. Such follow-up investigations could provide insights into whether methodological advancements are required to support GT researchers in “scaling up” their projects to produce research with greater reliability, validity, and broader applicability.

Conclusion

In this scoping review, we set out to map the GT research in the field of SM studies. It is evident that GT is gaining traction and is offering a robust and innovative approach to exploring the uncharted social territory of SM. SM researchers are increasingly using GT to uncover common social processes, generate insightful theoretical frameworks, and draw out the complexity and nuance needed for a more holistic understanding of phenomena. Additionally, we found that authors are creatively incorporating GT techniques into other research methods, showcasing its potential versatility and adaptability. Although the rationale behind this integration was not always clear, it highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of research in this field and GT in general.

Very few articles articulated their GT method. SM researchers considering using or adapting GT methods or techniques are encouraged to thoughtfully consider and clearly report the methodological underpinnings of their research. This will not only assist readers in assessing rigour and interpreting findings but also contribute to the evolution of the GT method itself.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Using Grounded Theory Method in Social Media Studies: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material for Using Grounded Theory Method in Social Media Studies: A Scoping Review by Gitte Galea, Lydia Mainey and Ritesh Chugh in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government’s Research Training Program.

ORCID iDs

Gitte Galea

Lydia Mainey

Ritesh Chugh

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adorjan

Ricciardelli

(2021). Synoptic prudentialism: The police, social media, and bureaucratic resistance. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 46(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs29727. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27081288

Alfonzo

(2023). Getting granular—uncovering actionable insights for effective social media management in the higher education sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 35(5), 468–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2021.1970078

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Artinian

B. M.

Giske

Cone

P. H.

(2009). Glaserian grounded theory in nursing research: Trusting emergence. Springer Publishing Company.

Bakker

J. I.

(2019). Grounded theory methodology and grounded theory method: Introduction to the special issue. Sociological Focus, 52(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2019.1550592

Birks

Mills

(2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Sage.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice Hall.

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Terry

(2019). Thematic analysis (pp. 843–860). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103

Brooks

Drenten

Piskorski

M. J.

(2021). Influencer celebrification: How social media influencers acquire celebrity capital. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1977737

10.

Bryant

(2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. Oxford University Press.

11.

Bryant

Charmaz

(2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941

12.

Casey

Crimmins

Rodriguez Castro

Holliday

(2022). “We would be dead in the water without our social media!”: Women using entrepreneurial bricolage to mitigate drought impacts in rural Australia. Community Development, 53(2), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1972017

13.

Cavusoglu

Atik

(2021). Accumulating capital through social media: The transformative power of underrepresented fashion consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(5), 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-08-2020-4074

14.

Chaker

N. N.

Nowlin

E. L.

Pivonka

M. T.

Itani

O. S.

Agnihotri

(2022). Inside sales social media use and its strategic implications for salesperson-customer digital engagement and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 100(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.10.006

15.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.

16.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London Sage.

17.

Charmaz

(2020). “With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419879081

18.

Chun Tie

Birks

Francis

(2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. Sage Open Medicine, 7(1), Article 2050312118822927. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927

19.

Clarke

A. E.

Friese

Washburn

(2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn (2nd ed.). Sage.

20.

Clarke

A. E.

Star

S. L.

(2008). The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. In The handbook of science and technology studies (Vol. 3, pp. 113–137). MIT Press.

21.

Creamer

E. G.

(2022). Advancing grounded theory with mixed methods (1st ed.). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

22.

Davids

Brown

(2021). The collective storytelling organisational framework for social media use. Telematics and Informatics, 62(9), Article 101636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101636

23.

Dosek

(2021). Snowball sampling and Facebook: How social media can help access hard-to-reach populations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(4), 651–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652100041X

24.

Easton

Morton

Tappy

Francis

Dennison

(2018). Young people’s experiences of viewing the fitspiration social media trend: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(6), Article e219. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9156

25.

Etemadi

Hon

C. K. H.

Manley

Murphy

(2022). Mechanisms for enhancing the use of social media for knowledge sharing by the construction professionals. Construction Innovation, 22(2), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-11-2020-0183

26.

Etter

Albu

O. B.

(2021). Activists in the dark: Social media algorithms and collective action in two social movement organizations. Organization, 28(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420961532

27.

Farhangi

Alipour

(2021). Social media as a catalyst for the enhancement of destination image: Evidence from a mediterranean destination with political conflict. Sustainability, 13(13), 72–76. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7276.

28.

Fincham

(2023). Business as usual: How journalism’s professional logics continue to shape news organization policies around social media audiences. Journalism Practice, 17(7), 1482–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.1991437

29.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

Strutzel

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing Research, 17(4), Article 364. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014

30.

Halaweh

(2018). Integrating social media and grounded theory in a research methodology: A possible road map. Business Information Review, 35(4), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382118809168

31.

Hameleers

(2020). My reality is more truthful than yours: Radical right-wing politicians’ and citizens’ construction of “fake” and “truthfulness” on social media—evidence from the United States and The Netherlands. International Journal of Communication, 14(1), Article 18.

32.

Hameleers

(2022). Empowering the people’s truth through social media? (de)legitimizing truth claims of populist politicians and citizens. Politics and Governance, 10(1), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4726

33.

Higginbottom

Lauridsen

E. I.

(2014). The roots and development of constructivist grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.5.8.e1208

34.

T. E.

Luo

X. R.

Dai

Zhang

(2021). Developing a value assessment framework of habitual social media use: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 22(2), 128–154.

35.

Huang

Ouyang

Huang

Yang

Lin

(2021). Explaining donation behavior in medical crowdfunding in social media. Sage Open, 11(2), Article 21582440211014520. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211014520

36.

(2023). Social media and society (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.

37.

Kaplan

A. M.

Haenlein

(2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

38.

Kasperiuniene

(2018). Maintaining academic connection for collective creativity: A grounded theory of university teacher’s professional behavior in social media. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 6(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2018.6.2.04

39.

King

D. B.

O’Rourke

DeLongis

(2014). Social media recruitment and online data collection: A beginner’s guide and best practices for accessing low-prevalence and hard-to-reach populations. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 55(4), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038087

40.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

41.

Zhang

Wang

(2022). The impact of enterprise social media use on employee performance: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(2), 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2020-0331

42.

Mak

Thomas

(2022). An introduction to scoping reviews. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(5), 561–564. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-22-00620.1

43.

Mitchell

(2014). Advancing grounded theory: Using theoretical frameworks within grounded theory studies. The Qualitative Report, 19(36), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1014

44.

Mkono

(2019). Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(5), 689–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1604719

45.

Moore

Magee

Gamreklidze

Kowalewski

(2019). Social media mourning: Using grounded theory to explore how people grieve on social networking sites. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 79(3), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222817709691

46.

Morgan

D. L.

(2020). Pragmatism as a basis for grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 25(1), 64–73.

47.

Morse

J. M.

(2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Routledge.

48.

Nagel

D. A.

Burns

V. F.

Tilley

Aubin

(2015). When novice researchers adopt constructivist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic and methodological paths in PhD dissertation work. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.28945/2300

49.

Nguyen

T.-N.

McDonald

Nguyen

T. H. T.

McCauley

(2020). Gender relations and social media: A grounded theory inquiry of young Vietnamese women’s self-presentations on Facebook. Gender, Technology and Development, 24(2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1719598

50.

Nussbaumer-Streit

Klerings

Wagner

Heise

T. L.

Dobrescu

A. I.

Armijo-Olivo

Stratil

J. M.

Persad

Lhachimi

S. K.

Van Noord

M. G.

Mittermayr

Zeeb

Hemkens

Gartlehner

(2018). Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: A meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 102(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022

51.

Orlikowski

W. J.

Baroudi

J. J.

(1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.1.1

52.

Pham

M. T.

Rajić

Greig

J. D.

Sargeant

J. M.

Papadopoulos

McEwen

S. A.

(2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123

53.

Redman-MacLaren

Mills

(2015). Transformational grounded theory: Theory, voice, and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400301

54.

Sarikakis

Winter

(2017). Social media users’ legal consciousness about privacy. Social Media + Society, 3(1), Article 2056305117695325. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117695325

55.

Scheibling

(2020). Doing fatherhood online: Men’s parental identities, experiences, and ideologies on social media. Symbolic Interaction, 43(3), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.459

56.

Schwalbe

(2020). The spirit of Blumer’s method as a guide to sociological discovery. Symbolic Interaction, 43(4), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.469

57.

Sebastian

(2019). Distinguishing between the strains grounded theory: Classical, interpretive and constructivist. Journal for Social Thought, 3(1).

58.

Singh

Estefan

(2018). Selecting a grounded theory approach for nursing research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 5(1), Article 2333393618799571. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393618799571

59.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications.

60.

Thomas

Lubarsky

Varpio

Durning

S. J.

Young

M. E.

(2020). Scoping reviews in health professions education: Challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 25(4), 989–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09932-2

61.

Thomson

T. J.

Greenwood

(2017). I “like” that: Exploring the characteristics that promote social media engagement with news photographs. Visual Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2017.1388701

62.

Throuvala

M. A.

Griffiths

M. D.

Rennoldson

Kuss

D. J.

(2019). A ‘control model’ of social media engagement in adolescence: A grounded theory analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), Article 4696. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234696

63.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

Straus

S. E.

(2018). Prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

64.

Tripathi

Verma

(2018). Social media, an emerging platform for relationship building: A study of engagement with nongovernment organizations in India. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 23(1), Article e1589. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1589

65.

Urquhart

Fernández

(2013). Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology, 28(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.34

66.

Urquhart

Lehmann

Myers

M. D.

(2010). Putting the “theory” back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x

67.

Urquhart

Vaast

(2012). Building social media theory from case studies: A new frontier for in research. Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2012/proceedings/ResearchMethods/8/

68.

We Are Social Ltd . (2024). Digital 2024: 5 billion social media users. We Are Social Ltd. https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2024/01/digital-2024-5-billion-social-media-users/

69.

Yang

Zhang

Ruangkanjanases

Zhang

(2021). Understanding the mechanism of social attachment role in social media: A qualitative analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 720880. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720880

70.

Zhang

Chau

P. Y. K.

Wang

Luo

(2021). Social media-enabled customer co-creation experience value: Conceptualisation and measurement. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(3), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.2004939

71.

Zhang

Liu

Peng

Yuan

(2020). A study of the influencing factors of mobile social media fatigue behavior based on the grounded theory. Information Discovery and Delivery, 48(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-11-2019-0084

72.

Zingg

Singh

Franklin

Ross

Selvaraj

Refuerzo

Myneni

(2023). Digital health technologies for peripartum depression management among low-socioeconomic populations: Perspectives from patients, providers, and social media channels. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 23(1), Article 411. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05729-9

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.53 MB

0.00 MB