APPLIED DOCTORAL RESEARCH AND THE PRACTITIONER RESEARCHER: BRIDGING INDUSTRY
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resumo
Practitioner-researcher positioning within doctoral programmes represents a significant, yet underexplored, dimension of the relationship between academic inquiry and industry relevance. This paper examines how a higher level of student–industry symbiosis can be attained through a particular choice of research methodology and a certain characteristic of doctoral research student: that of the practitioner-researcher. The contextualisation of this argument is grounded in several years of running a professional doctoral programme pursued by practitioner-researchers who apply a predominantly qualitative grounded theory (GT) research methodology. The paper's central objective is to explore how GT, as a processual and data-driven methodology, enables practitioner-researchers to effectively interact with industry and to produce doctoral research outcomes that are recognised as relevant, applicable, and valuable by industry and societal stakeholders. Three guiding arguments frame the discussion: that a theoretically sensitive, applied researcher achieves higher levels of synergy between doctoral research and industry needs; that GT as a methodology is optimally grounded in the realities of daily organisational operations and challenges; and that the processual nature of GT research generates symbiotic gains as the research projects unfold. To safeguard methodological rigour, the authors propose three process-oriented quality expectations that guide the practitioner-researchers throughout the inquiry: theory-building, data-driven, and analytic proficiency. The paper further argues for flexibility in the philosophical stance and the GT toolbox of techniques adopted by GT practitioner-researchers, allowing them to select a position along the objectivist–constructivist spectrum that aligns with their own ontological, axiological, and work-philosophy orientations, while avoiding methodological slurring or drift. Six doctoral studies are provided to illustrate this framework, spanning artificial intelligence adoption, female entrepreneurship, soft skills training, mindfulness in the wellness industry, the digital transformation of accounting and circular economy models in small island economies. These studies demonstrate how practitioner embedding and GT's iterative nature progressively enhance student–industry collaboration.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Como Citar
Direitos de Autor (c) 2026 New Trends in Qualitative Research
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0.
openAccess
openAccess
ALLEA. (2023). The European code of conduct for research integrity (Revised ed.). https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/
Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Cauchi, N. (2026). The need, applicability and impact of mindfulness within wellness organisations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 359–380). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2025). Constructing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/4131471
Costa, A. P., & Bem-Haja, P. (2025). Reflexive uncertainty AI for qualitative data analysis. In edu4AI@ECAI (pp. 13–23).
Creamer, E. G. (2022). Advancing grounded theory with mixed methods. Routledge.
Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. Sage.
Demanuele Montebello, T., Aquilina, R., & Falzon, R. (2025). Challenges faced by female entrepreneurs of small businesses in a small island state: A grounded theory study. Journal of Educational Studies. Advance online publication.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Falzon, R. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in therapeutic supervision: A narrative inquiry researching the Maltese context [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Bristol.
Falzon, R., & Cauchi, N. (2025). Mindfulness in service organisations supporting the holistic wellbeing of practitioners and clients. In M. Bernardo-Filho, A. Seixas, D. da Cunha de Sá-Caputo, & R. Taiar (Eds.), Complementary medicine: New insights, evidences, and practices. IntechOpen. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1013132
Frendo, C. (2026). The alignment of circular economy business models with the strategies of small and micro firms operating in Malta [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology.
Frendo, C., & Packer, P. A. (2026). The adoption of circular business models in small island states: Barriers and enablers. Journal of Circular Economy, 4(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.55845/joce-2026-4188
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2014). Choosing classic grounded theory: A grounded theory reader of expert advice. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Aldine.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2010). Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641011042026
Holton, J. A. (2018). From grounded theory to grounded theorizing in qualitative research. In C. Cassell, A. L. Cunliffe, & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 233–250). Sage.
Inguanez, F. (2024). Reviewing the local research-practice gap in industry 5.0. MCAST Journal of Applied Research & Practice, 8(2), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8932
Johnson, R. B., & Walsh, I. (2019). Mixed grounded theory: Merging grounded theory with mixed methods and multimethod research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 517–531). Sage.
Kelle, U. (2007). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 19, 133–156. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-288350
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Barton, A. H. (1955). Some general principles of questionnaire classification. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research (pp. 83–93). Free Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Harper & Row.
McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy. Sage.
Muscat, G., Aquilina, R., & Montalto, M. (2025). The evolving role of accountants in supporting small businesses in the digital age. International Journal of Accounting Research, 10(1), 35–40. https://j.arabianjbmr.com/index.php/ijar/article/view/1272
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Rizzo, A., Aquilina, R., & Falzon, R. (2024a). Applying MAXQDA in a grounded theory study: Evaluation of an enterprise education research project. In J. Ribeiro, C. Brandão, M. Ntsobi, J. Kasperiuniene, & A. P. Costa (Eds.), Computer supported qualitative research: New trends in qualitative research (WCQR2024) (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Vol. 1061, pp. 175–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65735-1_11
Rizzo, A., Aquilina, R., & Falzon, R. (2024b). The efficacy of grounded theory as a methodology to map the strategic behaviour of small organisations: A reflexive practitioner evaluation. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 32(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495824500031
Rizzo, A., & Fulford, H. (2012). Understanding small business strategy: A grounded theory study on small firms in the EU State of Malta. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(3), 287–332. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495812500136
Rossoni, A. L., de Vasconcellos, E. P. G., & de Castilho Rossoni, R. L. (2024). Barriers and facilitators of university–industry collaboration for research, development and innovation: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 74(3), 1841–1877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00349-1
Sal Moslehian, A., Tucker, R., & Kocaturk, T. (2022). Diagrammatic modelling tools for grounded theory research: The implementation of a multi-representational approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221127069
Scerri, D. (2024). Skilling for the future: Enhancing vocational learning and workplace productivity with creative AI tools. MCAST Journal of Applied Research & Practice, 8(1), 150–178. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.5099
Shim, M., Johnson, B., Bradt, J., & Gasson, S. (2021). A mixed method–grounded theory design for producing more refined theoretical models. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820932311
Simmons, O. E. (2022). Experiencing grounded theory: A comprehensive guide to learning, doing, mentoring, teaching, and applying grounded theory. BrownWalker Press.
Spiteri Axiak, I. (2025). Talent development and training effectiveness: Soft skills can be trained. Journal of Workplace Learning, 37(7–8), 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-2025-0106
Spiteri Axiak, I., Packer, P. A., & Ghio, S. (2025). Talent management in small and micro businesses: Can soft skills be trained? Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 39(4), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo-07-2024-0210
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
Vander Linden, K. L. (2025). A methodology-specific rubric for Glaserian classic grounded theory: Supporting fidelity, rigor, and constructive peer review. Grounded Theory Review, 25(1), 31–51.
Wosket, V. (1999). The therapeutic use of self: Counselling practice, research and supervision. Routledge.