Please let me know if this reference/site is helpful to you:

Case Studies

https://web.stanford.edu/class/cee320/.../Research%20Methods/CaseVsGTheory.pdfCached

types of data collection methods (e.g., ethnography). □ research ... Yin (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Yin (1981), “The Case ... Theory testing case studies. □ Theory ... Grounded Theory Method ... theoretical sampling—selectively sample new data with the core in ... Building Theories from Case Study.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Please let me know if this reference/site is helpful to you:

Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide

www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2006.pdfSimilar

Approach. Johanna Moisander and Anu Valtonen. Constructing Grounded Theory .... reexamines them through a methodological lens of the present century . Researchers can use grounded theory methods with either quantitative or qualitative data; however .... Grounded theorists collect data to develop theoretical analyses.

\

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

I think that phrasing your approach as creating "theorems" and "testing" them does not fit with the usual way of thinking in Grounded Theory. Instead, I would look into what GT calls the "constant comparative" method for developing descriptive initial codes into more theoretical categories.

Hi,

I often base my arguments on Whetten's (1989) 'What constitutes a theoretical contribution' & Corley and Gioia's (2011) 'building theory about theory building'. Both papers are excellent publication in the Academy of Management review.

I hope this might help you,

Jacob

Hi Devasheesh,

Prof. David has rightly opined that Grounded Theory (GT) does not 'test' but develop substantive theory.  Theorem, as I know it is more mathematical/algerba jargon and mixing it with GT termilnology will confuse because in GT 'all is data' is the guiding principal (which mean the theory comes from data) instead of proving something using simple chain of reasoning using established facts/rules.  What you can do is to develop your analytical understanding using data in one case and try to compare and further develop it using data from another case. This process is called constant comparson. After emergence of some concepts, next data collection in GT is guided by current analysis, a process called theoretical sampling. However, we cannot call it theory testing, but constant comparison.

While GT has a controversial history and different versions resuling in big literature base, I hope this worked example will help you understand the basics of how GT work.

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128

Meanwhile GTM has developed into a methodological cluster. The reference to one publication is not enough. You need a broader approach. Theorems and testing are excluded from whatever GTM approach you choose. 

Charles Berg is correct that there are now a number of different versions of Grounded Theory. Having said that, I did look over the article recommended by Arif Ulhaq and I thought it was good example of a "generic" study using GT (i.e., a study that did not subscribe to any particular school of GT).

The following papers/sources should also be helpful, namely: Grounded theory (GT) is a methodology that has as its central aim the objective of theory building, rather than theory testing……(Goulding, 2002, p. 107). GT does not start with testing an existing hypothesis, but uses the empirical data to generate concepts and theories…….GT is sometimes presented as a hypothesis to be further tested, in the form of narratives or even through a stories that identify categories and relationship….. (Hussein et al, 2014, pp. 3-7). 

• Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
• Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers, California, SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Holton, J. A. (2008). Grounded Theory as a General Research Methodology. Grounded Theory Review, 7, 2, pp. 67-93.
• Hussein, M. E., Hirst, S., Salyers, V. and Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19, 27, pp. 1-15. 
• Grounded theory as qualitative descriptive design?:  https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_theory_as_qualitative_descriptive_design
• Which approach of Grounded Theory?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_approach_of_Grounded_Theory

A good resource for this topic is:

Charmaz, K. (1995).  Grounded theory.  In J.A. Smith, R. Harre, & Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  (pp. 27-49).

I am truly impressed that highly regarded scientists are taking the time to teach others on Research Gate. This is not my major area of inquiry But I will look up your suggestions.

Thank you all for your responses and references which are quite helpful. I was, however, pointing to a different problem relating to creating a substantive theory through GTM wherein if one is doing multiple Case Study Design following GTM approach, then how does one create theoretical models for each case using theorems which finally add up to become the substantive theory (Lehmann, 2010)

'In inter-case sampling the status of the theoretical framework, which is the

result of all the previous cases’ categories and constructs is assessed for

‘saturation’ of theorems and propositions. Theoretical sampling then selects the

next case such that unsaturated theorems and propositions can be enhanced and

strengthened in their explanatory and predictive qualities.' (Lehmann, 2010)

Analysis in GT typically proceeds from codes to categories without referring to other kinds of theoretical frameworks. In the case of comparative case studies, this process might well proceed in a manner similar to what you describe -- working with the coding of one such case and then revising and building on that coding in the next case, and so on.

To me, that doesn't sound like building a theoretical framework after each case. I think what you describe might be a useful form of analysis, but in GT it would run the danger of "forcing" the analysis into prematurely defined categories.

Devasheesh,

first, "..a multi-case study following a Grounded Theory approach.." seems like a lot of work.

Because, as suggested in the answers, Grounded Theory does not create 'Grand Theory', but rather, substantive theory----that is, a theory of 'what's going on' in a particular case / scenario; and it does this by coding data, using 'constant comparison'-------comparing bits of your data with other bits of data and also emerging codes---- at progressively higher levels of abstraction.

For instance--and I note that you cite Glaser--- following Charmaz's GT, which I find most straightforward, you'd constantly compare all data within each of your cases (which is why I speculated 'a lot of work') and elicit (probably a lot of) Initial Codes signifying 'what's going on here'; you would then take these many initial codes to a higher level of abstraction by enveloping their meaning under a lesser number of Focused Codes; finally, you'd repeat this process to obtain an even smaller number of Theoretical Codes; and it is finding and specifying the linkage between these Theoretical Codes which creates the Grounded Theory of each case.

This of course, is a very superficial explanation; and note that, in GT, you would not 'test' one case against another, but rather, compare them.

Indeed, you could compare a substantive Grounded Theory with the wider developed theory in an area. Does it confirm the wider theory? Does it point to a possible development of it?

Personally, I think that for scientific progress, Grounded Theory cannot divorce itself from wider developed theory or 'literature' theory; it must either confirm it or point to its possible development.

But I don't want to say any more without knowing what you want to do with your study.

Good luck.