Grounded Theory Step by Step Revisited , Beyond Practical Management GROUNDED THEORY STEP BY STEP REVISITED , BEYOND PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT

A critical question is “Was the theory which I developed really Grounded Theory (GT)?. GT aims to develop a new theory, it is perhaps one of the most abused phrases in a qualitative study. Increasingly, researchers are making claims to have used a GT approach. This method is a relatively little productive discussion in management literature. Grounded Theory of mode 2 knowledge production system brings together the ‘supply side’ of knowledge, including universities, with the ‘demand side’, including business. The whole system depends for its effectiveness on a rapid interplay between management theory and practice. Mode 2 clearly focuses on management actions and describes the importance of involvement of participants and researcher through multidisciplinary approaches. This paper explains the history of GT, principles of GT, data analysis, an example in a building: Competitive Stakeholder Theory and finally working out the complexity of GT”.

Grounded theory methodology was firstly introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 with their phenomenal book "The Discovery of Grounded Theory".Glaser concludes two most important properties of conceptualizing for generating grounded theory are that concepts are abstract of 177 time, place, and people and that concepts have an enduring grab.The appeal of these two properties can literally go on forever as an applied way of seeing events (Glaser, 2002).Barney G. Glaser is an American sociologist and one of the founders of the grounded theory methodology. 1 Glaser was born in 1930 inSan Francisco, California and lives in nearby Mill Valley.He received his BA degree at Stanford in 1952.He pursued academic studies at the University of Paris where he studied contemporary literature.He also studied literature at the University of Freiburg for two years during off-hours from his military service.At Columbia, he was a student of Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton and received a Ph.D. in 1961.The dissertation was published in the book Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers.Post-doc Glaser started a research collaboration with Anselm Strauss at the University of California, San Francisco.Together they wrote Awareness of Dying (1965) based on a study of dying in Californian hospitals.The book was a success.As a response to the many methodological questions on the dying study the first grounded theory (GT) methodology appeared in 1967 coauthored with Strauss: The Discovery of Grounded Theory.Brown et al (2002) suggest grounded theory methodology has following eight assumptions: 1.The need to get out into the field to discover what is really going on (i.e., to gain firsthand information taken from its source.2. The relevance of theory, grounded in data, to the development of a discipline and as a basis for social action.3. The complexity and variability of phenomena and of human action.4. The belief that persons are actors who take an active role in responding to problematic situations. 5.The realization that persons act on the basis of meaning.6.The understanding that meaning is defined and redefined through interaction.7. A sensitivity to the evolving and unfolding nature of events (process).8.An awareness of the interrelationships among conditions (structure), action (process) and consequences.
As cited in Mehmetoglu and Altinay (2004), the analytic strategy of grounded theory had been used in several studies in various related fields such as management (Pandit, 1995), marketing (Goulding, 1997) and tourism (Decrop, 2000).According to Partington (2000), the approach to discovering theory from data known as grounded theory is much cited but little understood, however, the grounded theory has seen relatively little productive discussion in management literature.
The Grounded Theory Perspective cited in Glaser (2002) argued: "All is data is a well known Glaser dictum.What does it mean?It means exactly what is going on in the research scene is the data, whatever the source, whether interview, observations, documents, in whatever combination.It is not only what is being told, how it is being told and the conditions of its being told, but also all data surrounding what is being told.It means what is going on must be figured out exactly what it is to be used for, that is conceptualization, not for accurate description.Data is always as good as far as it goes, and there is always more data to keep correcting the categories with more relevant properties".A theory which is generated from grounded method must be based on a phenomenon, fit on data.As cited in Munir (2006), Strauss and Corbin say (1990) theories can not be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported which are from raw data.A theory is built from concept, not directly from data.The concept results from the conceptualization of data: The incidents, event, happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels.If a respondent says to a researcher, "Each day I spread my activities over the morning, resting between shaving and bathing," then the researcher might label this phenomenon as 'pacing'.As the researcher encounters another incident, and when after comparison to the first, they appear to resemble the same phenomena, then these, too, can be labeled as 'pacing'.Only by comparing incidents and naming like phenomena with the same term can the theorist accumulate the basic units for theory.In simple words, GT is rooted in the symbolic interactionism which focuses on the meanings of events to people and the symbols they use to convey that meaning.The basic tenet of GT is the generation of theory grounded in reality (the Discovery of Grounded Theory, 1967 by sociologists Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser).
A word of Phenomenon (New Webster's Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus, 1992) means any-thing appearing or observed especially if having scientific interest.(Partington, 2000) says that phenomenology refers to "reality is socially constructed, and consists of individuals' interpretation of their circumstances.Knowledge comes from the penetration by the researchers of the meanings that make up the individuals' views of reality.The researcher's role is to reconstruct those meanings".
Strauss and Corbin (1990) quoted in Munir (2006), Categories are higher in level and more abstract than the concepts they represent.They are generated through the same analytic process of making comparisons to highlight similarities and differences.Categories are the cornerstone of developing theory.They provide the means by which the theory can be integrated.We can show how the grouping of concepts forms categories by continuing with the example above.In addition to the concept of pacing, the analysis might generate the concepts of 'self-medicating', 'resting' and' watching one 's diet'.While coding, the analyst may note that, although these concepts are different in form, they seem to represent activities directed toward a similar process: keeping an illness under control.They could be grouped under a more abstract heading, they category: 'Self Strategies for controlling illness'.
A qualitative research aims to understand a phenomenon and develops researcher's imaginations.It does not take for explanation or interpretation among variables as in quantitative method (Salladien, 2008).Neuman (2003) explains that "some people believe that qualitative data are soft, intangible and immaterial.Such data are so fuzzy and elusive that researchers cannot really capture them.This is not necessarily the case.Qualitative data are empirical.They involve documenting real events, recording what people say (with words, gesture, and tone), observing specific behaviors, studying written documents or examining visual images.These are all concrete aspects of the world".In this study, communicable disease issues and social phenomena of mobile communities firstly recognized after one-year implementation of the CSR, through intense field observation and discussion.Again, the second phenomenon of coordination and conflict stakeholders appeared after one and a half years observation and experience.Those phenomena and some actions taken did not stop to observe.In order to gradually understand the interactions including conflicts and solve problems, stakeholders' mindsets were captured.All information was continuously collecting, analyzing and finally enfolding with literature including testing/confirmation the emerged theoretical framework to colleagues/ related persons/experts/practitioners.Strauss andCorbin, 1990 cited in Neuman, 2003 explain that Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived theory about a phenomenon.Bungin (2007) in a provocative way says that researcher comes into the field with "empty-headed" or without bringing any concept, theory or hypothesis.It is indeed the phenomenon, inductively observed as Glaser and Strauss's report on phenomena between hospital staffs and dying patients in their book.However, Kuhn, 1962 andFeyerabend, 1962 cited in Crompton (accessed on 3/25/2009) observations are not entirely free from the influences of theories.Partington (2000) says the paradigm model is at the core of Strauss and Corbin's method.It consists of a systematized cause and effect schema which the researcher uses to explicate relationships between categories and subcategories.It can describe as follows: Consequences.The Grounded research model emphasizes an observation method and develops an intuitive relationship among variables studied.The steps of research are started by examining formulations and redeveloping propositions during generating a new theory (Salladien, 2008).Faisal S (2007) describes the grounded theory is considered as an alternative approach towards a classical one (verificative study).The grounded theory moves from the bottom to the top namely empirical dataconceptual-theoretical.
Similarly, Moleong(2008),Pandit (1996), the process of developing the grounded theory is theo-This research tries to understand and to analyze more deeply the relationship based on facts (data, interview, and observation) and finally compared with literature review in generating a theory.Creswell (1994) shows an inductive model of thinking or logic to build a new theory as follows: To sum up the process of this study an example (Arry Pongtiku, Dissertation 2010): retical Sampling (1)-Data collections(2)-Data ordering(3)-Data Analysis(4)-theory development (5)-if theory saturation the study finished (6) and if not saturation the study continued.Dick (accessed 8/19/2002) says that over time, the grounded theory study works through the following mostly-overlapping phases: data collection, note taking, coding, send memos, sorting and writing.The grounded theory approach Mode 2 required for this study Bryman (1988) observes "In spite of the frequency which Glaser and Strauss and the idea of grounded theory are cited in the literature, there are comparatively few instances of its applica-tion…' (Cited in Partington, 2000).Partington (2000) comments that the difficulty of applying universal grounded theory prescriptions is borne out by experience with doctoral students working the field of organization and management who attempted to follow the Strauss and Corbin approach but have abandoned it because of its bewildering complexity.Indeed, in published management research there is little evidence of the successful application of any precisely delineated, prescribed approach.Partington examined such four management grounded theory exemplars: Brown and Eisenhardt (1977)--multiple cases studies, Gersick (1994)--single case study, Gioa and Chittipeddi (1991)-single case study and Kram and Isabella (1985)-pairs of individuals.In each of these four exemplars, the output of the studies is of mode 1 type, primarily aimed at an academic audience.The purpose of development into theories with a direct, practical use was a secondary consideration.As a result, although the theories generated by these studies contribute to our understanding of social processes, they are unlikely to be of direct interest to managers.The Mode 2 was initially introduced in 1994 by six authors:Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow through their book of The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Nowotny et al, 2003).Partington, 2000 and Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2009 note in the field of management, the mode 2 knowledge production system brings together the 'supply side' of knowledge, including universities, with the 'demand side', including business.The whole system depends for its effectiveness on a rapid interplay between management theory and practice.Kurt Lewin says "Nothing is so practical as a good theory "cited in Human Resource Development Review, 2005. Partington (2000) Chopra (2005) in Dictionary of Management defines Stimulus is initiating step intended to provoke a predictable response.Cognition is a process which uses all human senses to observe the outside world and to form perception attitudes, comprehension, and memory.Luthans (2002) says Cognition is the act of knowing an item of information.Under this framework, cognitions precede behavior and constitute input into the person's thinking, perception, pr oblem-solving, and information processing.If we trace back, we learn that B.F. Skinner, a modern behaviorism, who is widely recognized for his contributions to psychology explains respondent behavior (those behavior elicited by stimuli) but not the more complex operant behavior.It is, for example, the S-R approach in physical reflex, when stuck by a pin (S), the person will flinch (R), or when tapped below the kneecap (S), the person will extend the lower leg (R).
He strengthens the importance of the responsestimulus (R-S) relationship.The organism has to operate on the environment (thus the term operant conditioning) in order to receive the desirable consequence.Several studies from Davis and Luthans and Luthans and Kreitner as well as Albert Bandura, Social Learning takes the position that behavior can be best explained in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction among cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants.The person and the environmental situation do not function as independent units but in conjunction with the behavior itself, reciprocally interact to determine behavior (Luthans, 2002).Raimond (1998)

Stimulus
Response mal); it is in the external world, observable by everyone.The second arrow is what the organism does after the stimulus, also something observable by everyone.The square between the two arrows is the mind, considered as a black box, a box that is not publicly observable and hence not subject to scientific investigation, hence unnecessary to talk about.
For the strict behaviorists, the biological organism was also in the black box.So psychologists could be completely objective; they need only chart the relationships between stimuli and responses.
Furthermore, the information processing model takes the view that when the information or stimulus comes into the brain of the organism it has to be processed in an order that the appropriate response can be made (Raimond, 1998).S-O-R (Environmental Stimulus -Cognition-Management Action) theories are concerned with how people's understanding of their environment leads to actions.The assumptions behind grounded theory's symbolic interactionist origins match this consideration.Two features of Mode 2 are: First, Trans Disciplinary research is less likely to be based on the existing, highly developed theoretical frameworks from bounded disciplinary traditions, which tend to characterize Mode 1.Second, Mode 2 emphasizes tacit knowledge, which has not yet been codified, written down and stored.Academics and managers attempt to learn, working together from one another in a virtuous cycle of understanding, explication, and action in a mutually Trans Disciplinary frame (Partington, 2000).Takeuchi (1998) argues what Western companies need to do is "to unlearn" their existing view of knowledge and pay more attention to (1) tacit knowledge, (2) creating new knowledge, and (3) having everyone in the organization be involved.Japanese companies have advanced their position in international competition because of their skill and expertise at organizational knowledge creation, which is the key to the distinctive way that Japanese companies innovate.Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize and share with others.Subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches fall into the category of knowledge.Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual's action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces.Furthermore, tacit knowledge contains an important cognitive dimension.Yet they cannot be articulated very easily, this dimension of tacit knowledge shapes the way we perceive the world around us.Mode 2 for this application analyzes recollections of past events, often recorded in interview data, to develop an explanation of management action.Two characteristics of mode 2 inquiry are transdisciplinarity and emphasis on tacit knowledge.The approach however offered differs in two important ways from the much-cited universal grounded theory model originated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later proceduralism by Strauss and Corbin (1990).First, it acknowledges that the form of theories of management actions which will satisfy the contemporary demands of mode 2 research is different from the form of integrated sociological theory for which the original grounded theory approach was developed.Second, it takes account of differences between the ontological assumptions underlying the use of retrospective data for analyzing management action, and those associated with participant observation, the pivotal strategy of grounded theory's symbolic interactionist roots.The results would be a simplified, more direct approach which works for the specific purpose of generating useful, consensually valid theory (Partington, 2000).
Crompton, accessed on 3/25/2008 in her paper about Knowledge Production and Management in 21st Century, in regard to new knowledge and methodology, she states that "learning is defined here as any (more or less permanent) change of behavior, which is the result of experiences; the acquisition of knowledge, information, values, belief, norms, and behavior (where values, beliefs, and norms are dependent on culture).However as learning produces new knowledge which is the basis of innovation, and it has been shown that learning and knowledge are a social -cultural phenomena then researchers need to 'walk the walk' and 'talk the talk' of ordinary people in situ".I suggest that transdisciplinary approaches using multi-methodologies will be helpful in understanding complex social and cultural situations.Gioia and Pitre (1990) broadly define theory as any coherent description or explanation of observed or experienced phenomena.As cited in Luthans (2002) "theory is the answer to queries of why.The theory is about the connections among the phenomena a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur.The theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships, identifying what comes first as well as the timing of such events.Strong theory, in our view, delves into the underlying process so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or non-occurrence".As cited in Wibowo, T. H. (2005) some scholars talk about knowledge cre-ation.Giddens notes all social actors, all human beings are highly 'learned' in respect of knowledge which they possess and apply, in the production and reproduction of day-to-day social encounters.He distinguishes between discursive and practical knowledge, the former refers to knowledge that the actors are able to articulate (what is said), and the latter refers to tacit knowledge, which actors are able to draw on in action but are unable to express (what is simply done).Reflexive refers to the capacity of humans to routinely observe and understand what they are doing while they are doing it.It is not merely self-consciousness but includes continuous monitoring or physical and social contexts and activities either their own or others.Other scholar says knowledge conversion takes place within 'ba'.It is the physical and /or mental space that enables the process of conversion.'Ba' is a Japanese term, which literary means space or place.The concept of 'ba' was originally proposed by Kitaro Nishida.The concept of 'ba' concerns far more than physical elements, it includes perceptions throughout body and mind.Therefore 'ba' offers a context.In order to understand creativity as a tacit knowledge, we cannot ignore situated cognition and action.In knowledge creation, generation and regeneration of 'ba' are the keys, because 'ba' provides the energy, quality, and location to perform the individual conversions and to move along the knowledge spiral.As cited in Muhadjir (1996), Glaser and Strauss suggest, in order achieving a more optimal level of the new theory, the grounded research should be carried out in nontraditional areas, where the place is limited references.Eisenhardt (1989) also says that this research approach is especially appropriate in a new topic area.
In this study, I finally selected Mode 2 (modified grounded theory) for some reasons: 1.My concern of this study was to develop a useful theory which can bridge between theory and practice in management.S-O-R perspective teaches us that its orientation emphasizes the active, mediating role of the manager between environmental stimulus and behavioral response.This is may become more applicable for the management study.(Partington, 2000) says "the theorized relationship between environmental stimulus and management action,

Data Analysis
Two area concerns for this data analysis were as follows: a) First, the mobile local community which came and stayed near camp station and burden of communicable diseases from phenomena 1 will be analyzed quantitatively (experimental design).
Pre and post interventions presented using proportion and descriptive analysis.It will be as a supporting data in building a new theory of CSR.b) Second, stakeholders interactions which were our main focus from phenomena 2, was analyzed qualitatively using grounded method design.Evidence from fields (data and direct observation to a community and direct involvement in the activities and field coordination), experience's researcher and deep discussion to our team and communications with stakeholders, were practical ways to find the ideas.Questioners, email correspondence, interviews with stakeholders, daily notes of a researcher and other documentations will be collected and analyzed (selecting, coding, categorizing and so forth) in generating a new theory of CSR in management.
To support the concepts and to answer the hypothesis (H1) was 'treatments and health educations through mobile health team in community will reduce burden of communicable disease in the community in project locations and will also protect the workplace towards the communicable diseases Various sources of data and using triangulation method will ensure the quality of data analysis.
Since the main aim of this study was to build the new theory/model of CSR, my pre-proposition (P2) was working with stakeholders is a power to implement CSR and can create advantageous values during gas exploration phase needs the further discoveries through the process of qualitative data analysis.It was expected to understand and learn what, why and how the stakeholder interactions were a power and value creations in the special contexts such as uncertainty condition of exploration phase, remote area location and as a new company which entered new business in Indonesia.The grounded theory method answered this concern.
To get a chronological picture of grounded theory process, Neuman (2003) explains that in grounded theory, a qualitative researcher develops theory during data collections.This more inductive method means that theory is built from data or grounded in the data.Moreover, conceptualization and operationalization occur simultaneously with data collection and preliminary data analysis.It makes qualitative research flexible and lets data and the theory interact.When data collection and theorizing are mixed together, the theoretical questions arise that suggest future observations, so new data are tailored to answer theoretical questions that come from thinking about pr evious data.Mehmetoglu and Alinay (2006) comment, the focus on qualitative research has unfortunately been mainly confined to methods of data collection and neglecting a more significant aspect, namely data analysis.The data analysis in a grounded theory as Glaser and Strauss' suggestions contains: Incidents of phenomena in data are coded into categories.By comparing each incident with previous incidents in the same category, the researcher develops theoretical properties of categories and the dimensions of those properties.As the study progresses, the focus changes from comparing incidents with one another to comparing incidents with properties of the category that resulted from initial comparisons of incidents.The theoretical sampling and constant comparison processes lead towards the theoretical saturation of reduced set categories within the boundaries of the emerging theory.Memos-records of ideas relating to categories and the categories themselves form the basis of the written theory.Explored in different field settings and broader contexts, a substantive theory may be developed into more abstract, generalized formal theory (Partington (2007), Wignjosoebroto.S (2006).In discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, and then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to demonstrate the concept.The evidence may not necessarily be accurate beyond doubt, but the concept is undoubtedly a relevant theoretical abstraction about what is going on in the area studied.Furthermore, the concept itself will not change, while even the most accurate facts change (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).Partington (2000) says the twin basics of grounded theory are theoretical sampling, whereby the process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, together with constant comparison method of joint data coding and analysis.
As the importance of coding issues, Awad and Ghaziri (2004) in their textbook of Knowledge Management say codification is a prerequisite to knowledge transfer.From a knowledge management view, codification is converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge in a usable form for organizational members.From an information system view, it is converting undocumented to documented information.Regardless of the view, codification is making -specific knowledge (tacit and explicit) visible, accessible, and usable for value-added decision making, no matter what form it may take.This means that Tacit knowledge (in people' heads) such as human expertise is identified and leveraged through a form that delivers the highest return to the business.It may be through knowledge-sharing events, organized directories, yellow pages, or other means that will connect the ones who need the expertise to a source of expertise.Explicit knowledge should be organized, categorized, indexed, and accessed via the company's intranet or some other means to make it visible, accessible and usableon paper, in documents, in the data base.
Codifying tacit knowledge is complex and is more of an art than a science.Several different ways of encoding facts and relationships to codify knowledge exist.They include knowledge maps, decision tables, decision trees, frames, production rules and software agents (Awad and Ghaziri, 2004).As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, there were some levels of codification in grounded theory, however more specifically described as cited in Mehmetoglu and Altinay( 2006), Brown et al (2002) are as follows (a) Open coding as the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data.Data were broken down by asking simple questions such as what, where, how, when, how much, etc.Data that were initially broken down were then compared and similar incidents were grouped together and given the same conceptual label.This process of grouping concepts at a higher, more abstract level is termed 'categorizing'; (b) Axial coding is whereas open coding divides the data into concepts and categories, axial coding puts them back together in new ways by making connections between a category and its subcategories.The focus of axial coding is to create a model that details the specific conditions that give rise to a phenomenon's occurrence.During axial coding, the emerging categories, themes or pattern were validated by comparing the information with other informants, comparing the emerging themes with the information obtained through observation and secondary analysis of documents from and about the organization.We then make a theoretical memo: a short story which plays an important role and assists in the process of cre-ating order and making sense of data.The process of open coding, axial coding, and writing and developing memos lead to a number of finalized and saturated categories; (c) Selective coding is the next type of coding involved the integration of categories (axial) to form an initial theoretical framework.The codes and categories are explored further by revisiting the coded statements, with attention being given to understanding the inter-relationship.All the data were finally sifted and charted.
Mehmetoglu and Alinay ( 2006) summarize that the analytic strategy in practices of the Grounded Theory consisted of three concurrent stages/activities namely: Stage 1: familiarization, Stage 2: coding, conceptualization and ordering, and Stage 3: enfolding literature.Miles and Huberman (1994) also cited in Sugiyono (2007) summarize an interactive model for data analysis data as above: Partington (2000) suggested application for Mode 2 researchers seeking to build causal S-O-R theories of management action from retrospective data may use the guiding structure of three linked models: the simplified paradigm model, the simplified conditional matrix and the three overlapping domains of reality in the critical realist ontology.Mode 2 focuses on management actions, of course also means a bit shorter process of analysis than traditional grounded theory.In practice, the three models may be applied to the established procedures of grounded theory through the following steps: 1.Using the established procedures of grounded theory (Open coding -Axial coding -Selective category (Glaser's style) and the basic elements of the simplified paradigm model of S-O-R (Environmental Stimulus -Cognition-Management Action), code each example of active environmental stimulus which signified by management attention into categories, each with properties and dimensions, maintaining a flexible working definition of each category.2. Similarly, code each instance of action.3. Using the concentric circles of the simplified conditional matrix drawn on a large sheet of paper, make a freehand graphical representation of all instances of stimulus and action.Draw links between them.4. Consider as to possible underlying mechanism which could offer a theoretical explanation of the cognitive process which intervenes between, and explains, links between instances of stimulus and response.Seek explanations which informants find appealing and valid. 5. Generate the theory in contrasting contexts, continually testing and modifying the coding scheme.Draw into focus a cognitive process which offers a consensually valid and informative link between stimulus and action.6. Write the theory in the form three stages, each representing a progressively higher level of theoretical abstraction:  Case narrative with illustrative data samples  Summary within case and cross-case tabulations  Theoretical propositions and summary process models To summarize the data analysis in building this new theory, I strengthened once again using a figure 7 that it is analyzed by using Mode 2 (the modified grounded theory method) which focused on Environmental Stimulus-Cognition-Management Action on CSR implementation and dealing with stakeholders and mixed with supporting quantitative data analysis namely (a) pre and post intervention of communicable diseases control in community, (b) Trend of diseases and incidence in workplace from health and safety department of the company (c) quality performance which was measured by Malcolm Baldrige scorecard.Finally, I put it back in one picture of mixed methods of data analysis as below.

Credibility of Data
Some efforts were done to ensure accountable /credible data as follows: Lengthening observation including informally visiting other areas/villages which impacted by other companies operations (Bintuni and Timika);-Keen to do observations and search up to date information; Triangulation (con- sistency among data, observation, interview); Test to water (tested about recommendations/conclusion of progress reports or results to other stakeholders/ the informants, giving feedbacks; Circulated reports/progress report to stakeholders; Discussion to experts; Discussion to others using common sense; Discussion with mobile health team; Discussion with company man; Presented to workshops/meetings; The author of this paper was functioned as a mediator/coordinator, implementer and medical consultant of this project or deeply involved in this CSR's Nations Petroleum received Award "ManggalaKarya Bhakti Kartika" at National Health Day from Minister of Health Republic of Indonesia.This CSR has supported health and environmental care (Kompas, 18 December 2008;Bisnis Indonesia, 17 January 2009).

Ethical Considerations
As cited in Creswell (1994) most authors who discuss qualitative research study addressed the importance of ethical considerations where the researcher foremost has an obligation to respect the right, needs, values, and desires of the informant(s).In this study, the following safeguards were employed to protect the informant's rights: 1.The research objectives were articulated verbally and in writing so that they were clearly understood by the informants.It is including a description of how data will be used.2. Written permission proceeds the study, in this case, formal letter permission from the company and informally talking to those informants during this study and through sharing information.The questioners and feedback given by the informants were ensured confidentiality and protect the identity of the informants (anonym).3. The informants were informed about all data collection devices and activities as well as were partially and gradually report during the process of writing this dissertation.4. The informant's rights, interests, and wishes were be considered first when choices are made regarding reporting the data.5. Transcription, written interpretations, and reports were made available to the informants.A full report would be finally accessible for the informants.

A New Theory
Competitive Stakeholder Theory was built by ArryPongtiku based on study an oil and gas company working in remote areas, uncertainty place and in the phase of gas and oil exploration that practiced Corporate Social Responsibility for a local community.I eventually conclude some Theoretical Propositions.

Working out problems in doing Grounded Theory
There is an assumption that Grounded Approach is difficult and could be only better employed by a team of researchers or by a more experienced researcher who could deal with the complexities and contradictions of this approach (Mehmetoglu and Altinay, 2004).Munir (2006) says Grounded Method needs the qualified researchers who have high flying hours, self-confidence, creativeness and experience, and this is more likely not found in the young researcher.Since its analytical model is continuous as long as field data is being collected, GT is not easy for the beginners.However, I feel, this issue is not all true, it actually can be improved if the researcher really involves in the field study, using modified approach such as Mode 2, correspondence with Grounded Researcher who has experience and last but not least perseverance and wants to experiment.With this opportunity, I would share experience in working out problems in doing Grounded Theory Method, as follows: The first critical question came to me, was the theory which I developed really Grounded Theory?Bungin (2007) Partington (2000) says that the Trans Disciplinary nature of mode 2 research means that preexisting theoretical frameworks are likely to be fragmented or rudimentary.With the grounded theory approach this is not a disadvantage since the purpose of the approach is to build new theories from data in context.Mode 2 research is often aimed at capturing tacit knowledge.The retrospective, reflexive accounts of managers and other organizational actors will be an important source of this knowledge.One of the key quotations of Deming (Wikipedia, accessed on 6/12/2009) is " The most important things are unknown or unknowable", analogous to an earthquake that disrupts service, other "earth-shattering" events that most affect an organization will be unknown or unknowable, in advance.During the time of data collection and the process of analysis, I read relevant references and supporting documents (literature as data) and lets the study flow.Since I got the draft of the theory, I finally searched more deeply references particularly references of critics of the existing /related theory that I would produce.So this way would not so much hinder my genuine concept.In addition, I agree, GT should be better selected as a method only for something which not so much clear or need to find new perceptions (Stern,1994cited in Munir, 2006).
Glaser and Strauss cited in in Muhadjir (1996) suggest, in order achieving the more optimal level of the new theory, the grounded research should be carried out in nontraditional areas, where the place is limited references.This approach is especially appropriate in a new topic area (Eisenhardt (1989).
The methodology applied this study was Grounded Theory of mode 2 which paid attention to the balance between theory and practice in management.Mode 2 was clearly described the importance of involvement of participants and researcher through multidisciplinary approaches.However, the combination of learning from informants and interpretation of researcher did not follow the "Hermeneutics principles by Giddens" for the qualitative approach as usual.Giddens says we learned from informants (emic perspectives) through the first order understanding and the second order understanding (Sanapiah in Bungin 2003).I think, interpretations through informants who had various backgrounds and through researcher were considered as the advantage and mutually strengthened.One core method of GT by Glaser is constant comparisons that come from various data, so observation, interview and review documents must be synergy.As Takeuchi (1998) says Tacit knowledge, concerned by Mode 2, is deeply rooted in an individual's action and experience, as well as in the ideals, values or emotions he or she embraces.Sociologist such as Mead and Blumer with their theories of symbolic interaction emphasized the effect of meaning and symbols towards action and human interactions (Ritzerand Goodman, 2003).It means the interpretation of data do not solely find from interviews but from observation and understanding of the researcher towards the social situation.Grounded Theory needs good rapport of researcher so the researcher can take as much as possible information.In this study, the researcher worked as mediator/coordinator of CSR program in the study so it was very possible.In addition, thus, this issue should be not a problem or contradiction.
Overall, one of the difficult parts of doing Grounded Theory that I felt was preparation including selecting, rewriting transcription from different sources of data.This spent a lot of time for me like "long journey" especially needed language translation.In contrast, when I came in the phase of analysis particularly Selective Coding, the theory arose more quickly than I imagined, Glaser calls "drugless trip" (Dick, accessed 8/19/2002).I found such situation was really exciting and encouraging.I could express what was really happening in the situation.There was a feeling of freedom, autonomy and license to write (Glaser,2002).To repeat GT principles by Glaser, it is obvious for those who implement Grounded research should have some capabilities namely note taking (grasping key issues), theoretical sampling (working with diversity of samples), triangulation (constant comparison) and the most important is theoretical sensitivity where researcher is able to get sort of key words/ ideas from the data and perceive as variables and its relationship.It is the most creative job.
The issue of saturation is found in GT. Green and Thorogood (2004) comment that GT is perhaps one of the most abused phrases in the qualitative study.Increasingly, researchers are making claims to have used a GT approach in what emerges as rather superficial thematic content analysis.An analysis that has used GT should provide a detailed, saturated account of data, rather than a list of key themes.Pandit (1996) the process of developing the grounded theory is Theoretical Sampling (1)-Data collections(2)-Data ordering(3)-Data Analysis(4)-theory development (5)-if theory saturation the study finished (6) and if not saturation the study continued.From experience, I felt saturation in the three situations; firstly I collected data from time to time when I felt that various data (primary and secondary data) were enough, I then stopped it.Secondly, during process of open coding, similar headings have many times come up and the kind of headings/categories become limited and limited, I stopped the process of open coding.Thirdly, during the process of axial coding and selective coding, I made relationship among categories and subcategories (properties) or among core categories and its categories.I felt diminishing returns when no more/enough relationship produced; I stopped the process.Dick (accessed on 8/19/2002) says in collecting and interpreting data about a particular category, in time you reach a point of diminishing returns is saturation.It must be noted the collection of data is a continuous process and simultaneous.Yet you have already processed data analysis, you get other additional information/data you should include and process it again.
Mode 2, of course, is simpler and shorter than traditional GT approach as already discussed.I think Mode 2 is significantly different if compared Mode 1 (traditional GT) in few things such as preparation of data (collecting and selecting data focused on Stimulus and Actions), a process of axial coding and using retrospective data as well as involvement many informants in developing knowledge.Mode 2 overcomes the complexities of GT.
Although Creswell and Clark (2007) give examples of Embedded Design where a research embed qualitative data within a quantitative methodology, as might be done in an experimental design or quantitative data could be embedded within a qualitative methodology as could be done in a phenomenology design, however, in this case, I could not play the mixed methods with embedded Grounded Theory and Experimental Model to describe each other during the Data Analysis in the Results Chapter except in the Discussion because the objective of this qualitative method was to build a theory.Therefore, had to finish analyzing qualitative method firstly and then analyzing quantitative method secondly.However, I believe, respectively the quantitative results of pre and post-experimental intervention, health statistic of a workplace, and Malcolm Baldrige score card in this study played a supplemental role within the overall design namely supported strengthened, triangulated and qualified the main qualitative analysis in order to build a theory finally.

Figure 5
Figure 5 Mixed methods of data analysis

Table 1 Mode 1 and Mode 2: two different models for undertaking research Different Research Models Mode I Mode II
Source:Svensson, Ellström and Brulin,2009

Figure 6 Competitive Stakeholder Theory Trust Moral PDCA Power & Control Of Stakeholders Embedded in Ethics Philoso- phy Cost Effective Strategies Recognition Creating Values Issues Grounded Theory Step by Step Revisited, Beyond Practical Management
in a provocative way says that researcher comes into the field with "empty-headed" or without bringing any concept, theory or hypothesis.It is indeed a real phenomenon of what occurs in the situation.As cited in Dick (accessed on 8/19/ 2002) Glaser recommends reading widely while avoiding the literature most closely related to what we are researching.His fear, our reading may otherwise constrain our coding and memoing.Dick's own view, however, is that it makes sense to access relevant literature as it becomes relevant and part of the data collection procedures.Reading refer-