PROSEDUR ANALISIS DATA PENELITIAN GROUNDED THEORY

Makalah ini disusun untuk memenuhi tugas

Kelompok pada mata kuliah Analisis Data Kualitatif

Dosen Pengampu:

1. Prof. Dr. Nahiyah Jaidi Faraz, M.Pd

2. Caly Setiawan, Ph.D

Disusun Oleh:

Delyanti Azzumarito Pulungan

NIM. 19701261013

PROGRAM STUDI PENELITIAN DAN EVALUASI PENDIDIKAN

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS NEGERI YOGYAKARTA
2020

1
 KATA PENGANTAR

Puji syukur penulis panjatkan atas rahmat, karunia dan hidayah Allah SWT
sehingga penulis dapat menyelesaikan tugas makalah ini dengan baik. Ucapan terima
kasih juga penulis haturskan kepada Dosen Pengampu yang telah membimbing penulis
dalam menyelesaikan tugas makalah ini. Makalah ini disusun sebagai Tugas Individu
pada mata kuliah Analisis Data Kualitatif. Semoga tugas ini dapat menambah
pengetahuan dan wawasan dalam penerapan metode kualitatif khususnya untuk analisis
data pada penelitian Grounded Theory yang dibahas dalam makalah ini.

Penulis menyadari bahwa tugas ini masih jauh dari kesempurnaan, apabila
dalam tugas ini terdapat banyak kekurangan dan kesalahan, penulis mohon maaf karena
sesungguhnya pengetahuan dan pemahaman penulis masih terbatas. Karena itu penulis
menantikan saran dan kritik dari pembaca yang sifatnya membangun guna
menyempurnakan tugas ini. Atas perhatiannya penulis ucapkan terima kasih.

Yogyakarta, Desember 2020

Penulis

i
 DAFTAR ISI

KATA PENGANTAR .................................................................................................. i

DAFTAR ISI ................................................................................................................ ii
BAB I PENDAHULUAN ............................................................................................ 1
1.1. Latar Belakang ............................................................................................... 1
1.2. Rumusan Masalah .......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Tujuan Pembahasan ........................................................................................ 3
BAB II PEMBAHASAN ............................................................................................. 4
2.1. Definisi Grounded Theory.................................................................................. 4
2.2. Karakteristik Grounded Theory.......................................................................... 7
2.3. Prosedur Pelaksanaan Penelitian Gorunded theory .......................................... 12
2.4. Prosedur Analisis dan Interpretasi Data ........................................................... 20
2.4. Prosedur Analisis dan Interpretasi Data ......................................................... 202
BAB III PENUTUP ................................................................................................... 26
DAFTAR PUSTAKA ................................................................................................ 27

ii
 BAB I
PENDAHULUAN

1.1.Latar Belakang

Penelitian kualitatif mungkin tidak popular dikalangan penelitia, khususnya di

Indonesia barangkali karena menuntut peneliti untuk memiliki kedalaman berpikir

dalam menganalisa data. Hal ini wajar karena memang pada penelitian kualitatif,

peneliti merupakan instrument pengumpul data sekaligus alat interpretasi data.

Sehingga dalam waktu yang bersamaan, penelitia harus terjun dan bersinggungan

langsung dengan sumber data, tetapi sekalugus harus memisahkan diri dalam

menginterpretasikannya sehingga tetap memenuhi kaidah objektivitas dalam sebuah

penelitian. Sehingga, keahlian dalam melakukan penelitian kualitatif mengharuskan

peneliti untuk memiliki frekuensi yang banyak dalam melakukan penelitian kualitatif.

Prinsipnya, penelitian kualitatif memberikan pemahaman tentang paradigma

penelitian yang diperluas dan diperdalam dengan tujuan memperoleh pemahaman yang

tidak terbatas. Dimana, melalui penelitian kualitatif, metode untuk memperoleh

pengetahuan dapat dilakukan dengan membuka diri pada perubahan diri dan juga

lingkungan dengan tujuan untuk mendapatkan kebenaran empiris, ontologis,

epistimologis dan aksiologis. Pemahaman bahwa penelitian dilakukan tidak hanya

sebatas hubungan antar variabel tetapi juga melihat fenomena yang terjadi

sesungguhnya atau realitas yang sebenarnya tanpa batasan pandangan (Burrell &

Morgan, 2005). Penelitian kualitatif memberikan banyak peluang cara untuk melihat,

1
menafsirkan, dan memaknai suatu fenomena yang sesungguhnya terjadi di lingkungan

sekitar manusia, seperti dengan menggunakan pendekatan grounded theory (Egan,

2002).

Penelitian Grounded Theory adalah metode penelitian kualitatif yang

menggunakan sejumlah prosedur sistematis yang diarahkan untuk

mengembangkan teori berorientasi tindakan, interaksi, atau proses dengan

berlandaskan data yang diperoleh dari lapangan. Grounded Theory merupakan

salah satu model pendekatan yang sedang berkembang sangat pesat beberapa

tahun terakhir ini, baik dari sisi kuantitas maupun bidang studi yang

menggunakannya, dari yang semula di bidang sosiologi saja sekarang sudah

berkembang ke bidang lain, seperti pendidikan, ekonomi, antropologi, psikologi,

bahasa, komunikasi, politik, sejarah, agama dan sebagainya. Di dalam makalah ini

penulis akan mencoba mendeskripsikan konsep pokok, prosedur penelitian hingga

prosedur analisis data pada penelitian grounded theory.

2
1.2. Rumusan Masalah

Pada makalah ini, masalah yang akan dibahas adalah sebagai berikut.

1. Apakah definisi penelitian Grounded Theory berdasarkan ahli?

2. Apakah karakteristik penelitian Grounded Theory?

3. Bagaimana prosedur pelaksanaan penelitian Grouned Theory?

4. Bagaimana prosedur analisis dan interpretasi data pada penelitian

Grounded Theory?

5. Bagaimana contoh studi menggunakan pendekatan Grounded Theory?

1.3.Tujuan Pembahasan

1. Menjelaskan definisi penelitian Grounded Theory berdasarkan ahli

2. Menjelaskan karakteristik penelitian Grounded Theory yang membedakannya

dengan pendekatan pada penelitian kualitatif lainnya.

3. Menjelaskan langkah prosedur pelaksanaan penelitian Grouned Theory.

4. Menjelaskan langkah prosedur analisis dan interpretasi data pada penelitian

Grounded Theory?

5. Memaparkan contoh studi menggunakan pendekatan Grounded Theory

3
 BAB II
PEMBAHASAN

2.1. Definisi Grounded Theory

Memahami definisi penelitian Grounded Theory adalah hal yang penting bagi

para peneliti kualitatif, khususnya para peneliti baru yang ingin mencoba memahami

konsep dan prosedur pada penelitian grounded theory. Terutama ketika Grounded

Theory mulai berkembang, tidak hanya digunakan oleh para sosiolog, tetapi mulai

banyak digunakan para peneliti untuk penelitian multidisiplin mencakup ekonomi,

psikologi, kesehatan bahkan pendidikan (Budiasih, 2013). Dikenalkan pertama kali

oleh Glaser & Strauss pada tahun 1967, dalam bukunyan The Discovery of Grounded

Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research menyatakan “We believe that the discovery

of theory from data-which we call grounded theory-is a major task confronting

sociology today, for, as we shall try to show, such theory fits empirical situations, and

is understanable to sociologists and layman alike”.

Dalam karya mereka tersebut, Glaser dan Strauss berusaha memperkenalkan

suatu penelitian untuk menemukan teori berdasarkan data. Menemukan teori

berdasarkan data tersebut merupakan pendekatan baru yang berlawanan dengan

pendekatan klasik (clasical approach) yang telah berlangsung sedemikian mapan di

dunia ilmu pengetahuan. Proses menemukan teori berdasarkan tersebut kemudian

dikenal dengan nama Grounded Theory.

4
 Grounded theory adalah teori yang diperoleh secara induktif dari penelitian

tentang fenomena yang dijelaskannya (Glaser & Strauss, 2006). Karenanya teori ini

ditemukan, disusun, dan dibuktikan untuk sementara melalui pengumpulan data yang

sistematis dan analisis data yang berkenaan dengan fenomena itu (Strauss & Corbin,

2003 dalam Khair, 2010). Jadi, penekanannya pada pendekatan sistematis ketika

mengumpulkan data, penanganan data, serta analisis data.

Grounded theory adalah metode penelitian yang menjelaskan petunjuk-

petunjuk sistematis untuk pengumpulan dan analisis data dengan tujuan membangun

kerangka yang dapat menjelaskan data yang terkumpul (Charmaz, 2002). Grounded

theory tidak berangkat dari teori untuk menghasilkan teori baru melainkan berupaya

menemukan teori berdasar teori empirik, bukan membangun teori secara deduktif logis.

Karena itu, grounded theory melepaskan teori dan peneliti langsung terjun ke lapangan

untuk mengumpulkan data. Dengan kata lain, penelitian model grounded bergerak dari

data menuju konsep. Data yang telah diperoleh dianalisis menjadi fakta, dan fakta

menjadi konsep.

Grounded theory dikembangkan secara induktif selama penelitian sedang

berlangsung dan melalui interaksi yang terus menerus dengan data di lapangan untuk

mengembangkan laporan teoritis ciri-ciri umum suatu topik secara simultan di

lapangan dari catatan observasi empirik sebuah data (Martin & Tuner, 1986;

Fernandez, 2004). Grounded theory adalah sebuah metodologi yang mencoba

mengkonstruksi teori tentang isu-isu penting dari kehidupan masyarakat (Glaser, 1978;

Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

5
 Meskipun ada berbagai variasi grounded theory lintas disiplin, ada lima prinsip

utama grounded theory seperti yang dipostulasikan oleh Gibson dan Hartman (2014)

baru-baru ini, diantaranya:

1. Keterbukaan grounded theory yang dapat divalidasi dengan melihat

penghindaran prakonsepsi peneliti. Dasar untuk memulai studi grounded

theory hanyalah untuk mendefinisikan sebuah fenomena dan lokasinya.

2. Kekuatan penjelasnya. Grounded theory adalah pendekatan untuk

menjelaskan pembentukan dan keterkaitan fenomena sosial yang

melingkupi masalah. Keterkaitan seperti itu akan dieksplorasi dan

dikonseptualisasikan melalui metodologi grounded theory.

3. Keseimbangan. Grounded theory adalah tentang keseimbangan antara

generasi dan pembenaran teori ground. Teori semacam itu perlu dilandasi

di lapangan dengan berbagai perspektif partisipan. Baik peneliti maupun

partisipan diharapkan fleksibel dan terbuka untuk berbagi pandangan

mereka.

4. Ketegorisasi. Grounded theory harus memperhatikan persyaratan untuk

menyusun dan mengintegrasikan kategori, baik kategori inti maupun non-

inti. Kategori dalam teori yang membumi saling terkait dengan sejumlah

proposisi yang menghubungkannya dengan cara tertentu.

5. Iterasi. Grounded theory melakukan iterasi dari proses pengumpulan data

dan analisis data digabungkan secara berulang.

6
2.2. Karakteristik Grounded Theory
Secara umum grounded theory memiliki 6 karakteristik pokok (Creswell, 2008;
Budiasih, 2013):
1. Process Approach. Maksudnya bahwa Grounded Theory, berfokus pada proses

yang berhubungan dengan sebuah topik substantif. Proses yang dimaksud adalah

bagaimana urutan tindakan serta interaksi antar manusia dan peristiwa-peristiwa

yang berhubungan dengan sebuah topik. Misalnya pada pengalihbahasaan novel

asing ke dalam bahasa Indonesia. Dalam topik seperti ini, peneliti grounded theory

dapat mengidentifikasi dan mengisolasi tindakan-tindakan dan interaksi antar

manusia, seperti interaksi antara penerbit dan penterjemah pada saat negoisasi,

tindakan-tindakan yang dilakukan penterjemah selama proses pengalihbahasaan,

dan sebagainya. Aspek-paspek yang diisolasi ini disebut kategori-kategori, yang

digunakan sebagai tema-tema informasi dasar dalam rangka memahami suatu

proses.

2. Theoretical Sampling. Maksudnya bahwa penjaringan data dilakukan dengan

menggunakan penyampelan teoritis. Grounded Theory, tidak menjadikan jumlah

populasi sebagai penentuan sampel. Melainkan apakah sampel yang dituju benar

memiliki karakteristik yang mewakili konsep dalam beragam bentuknya. Sehingga

sampel diambil dengan cara penyampelan teoritik. Yaitu dengan cara memilih

data-data atau konsep-konsep yang terbukti berhubungan dengan dan mendukung

secara teoritik teori yang sedang disusun. Tujuannya adalah mengambil sampel

peristiwa/fenomena yang menunjukkan kategori, sifat, dan ukuran yang secara

7
langsung menjawab masalah penelitian. Sebagai contoh, jika peneliti sedang

meneliti “Tingkat Resiliensi Matematika Siswa Terhadap Soal Literasi

Matematika”, siswa yang pernah mengerjakan soal literasi matematika merupakan

kandidat yang paling sesuai untuk diwawancarai. Guru, kepala sekolah atau

orangtua memang dapat dijadikan sumber informasi yang relevan, namun peran

mereka tidak begitu sentral karena Resiliensi Matematika Siswa terhadap soal

literasi matematika akan muncul dari seorang siswa yang mengalami secara

langsung mengerjakan soal literasi matematika.

Dari penjelasan tersebut kita dapat memahami bahwa pada dasarnya, sampel

dalam peneltian Grounded Theory bukan objek formal penelitian (orang atau

benda-benda) melainya objek material yang berupa fenomena yang menjadi

subtantif dan telah dikonsepkan. Tetapi karena melekat pada subjek, sehingga

secara langsung objek formal ikut menjadi sampel dalam pengumpulan dan

penggalian fenomena. Subyek-subyek yang diteliti secara berproses ditentukan di

lapangan, ketika pengumpulan data berlangsung. Cara penyampelan inilah yang

disebut dalam penelitian kualitatif sebagai snow bowl sampling.

Sesuai dengan tahap pengkodean dan analisis data, penyampelan dalam

Grounded Theory diarahkan dengan logika dan tujuan dari tiga jenis dasar

prosedur pengkodean. Ada tiga pola penyampelan teoritik, yang sekaligus

menandai tiga tahapan kegiatan pengumpulan data; (a) penyampelan terbuka, (b)

penyampelan relasional dan variasional, serta (c) penyampelan pembeda.

8
3. Constant Comparative Data Analysis. Maksudnya bahwa analisis data dilakukan,

sambil melaksanakan perbandingan konstan dan membuat pertanyaan tentang

data-data yang diperoleh. Peneliti terlibat dalam proses pengumpulan data,

pengelompokan data ke dalam kategori-kategori, pengumpulan data tambahan,

dan pembandingan informasi yang baru itu dengan kategori-kategori yang muncul.

Proses yang berlangsung secara perlahan-lahan ini merupakan prosedur analisis

data induktif, dan dinamai prosedur perbandingan konstan (constant comparative

procedure). Proses ini diigunakan untuk memunculkan dan menghubungkan

kategori-kategori dengan cara membandingkan satu peristiwa dengan peristiwa

lainnya, satu peristiwa dengan satu kategori, dan satu kategori dengan kategori

lainnya.

Dalam tahap pelaksanaan (Dick, 2005) menggambarkan analisis data

perbandingan konstan, dalam langkah-langkah berikut. Misalnya untuk fenomena

Resiliensi Matematika siswa Terhadap Literasi Matematika, maka pada

wawancara pertama, peneliti hanya bertanya pada diri sendiri: “Apa yang sedang

berlangsung?”, “Situasi apakah ini?”, “Bagaimana siswa ini menangani situasi

tersebut? “, “Lalu, kategori-kategori apa yang terungkap melalui pernyataan-

pernyataan ini?”

Setelah itu, peneliti mengodekan hasil-hasil wawancara pertama dan kedua

ke dalam kategori-kategori, seluruh kategori (termasuk yang diperoleh dari sumber

data lainnya) dibandingkan satu dengan yang lain. Setelah itu, seluruh kategori

9
 dihubungkan dengan teori yang muncul dipikiran peneliti selama melakukan

perbandingan.

4. A Core Category. Pada saat melakukan analisis data untuk memunculkan kategori-

kategori, sebuah kategori inti harus diidentifikasi. Dari seluruh kategori utama

yang diperoleh dari data, peneliti memilih satu kategori sebagai inti fenomena

dalam rangka merumuskan teori. Setelah mengidentifikasi beberapa kategori

peneliti memilih satu kategori inti sebagai basis penulisan teori.

Berikut ini adalah enam kriteria untuk menentukan kategori inti (Strauss dan

Corbin, dalam Creswell, 2008: 444):

a. Kategori tersebut harus merupakan sentral, sehingga kategori-kategori utama

lainnya dapat dihubungkan pada kepada kategori central tersebut.

b. Kategori tersebut sering muncul dalam data, dengan pengertian bahwa dalam

semua kasus terdapat indikator-indikator yang merujuk pada kategori inti

tersebut.

c. Penjelasan-penjelasan yang menghubungkan kategori-kategori bersifat logis,

konsisten dan tidak dipaksakan.

d. Istilah atau frasa yang digunakan untuk menjelaskan kategori inti harus

abstrak.

e. Seiring dengan penyempurnaan konsep, teori berkembang dalam aspek

kedalaman dan kemampuan menjelaskan.

f. Meskipun kondisi bervariasi, kategori inti masih mampu menjelaskan seara

akurat.

10
5. Theory Generation. Kategori inti yang diidentifikasi kemudian dikembangkan

dan dirumuskan menjadi teori. Karena teori ini dilandaskan pada fenomena yang

spesifik, teori ini tidak dapat diaplikasikan digeneralisasikan secara meluas pada

fenomena lain. Oleh karena itu, Charmaz (dalam Creswell, 2008: 446) mengatakan

teori ini bersifat “middle range”, ditarik dari beberapa individual atau sumber data

dan memberi penjelasan yang akurat hanya pada sebuah topik yang substantif.

Glaser & Strauss (1967) membedakan teori substantif dari teori formal dengan

menghubungkan pembangkitan teori substantif dengan penelitian empiris, dimana

teori formal dihubungkan secara teoritis atau secara konseptual. Teori substantif

memiliki jangkauan generalisasi pada suatu daerah substantif penelitian;

sedangkan teori formal memiliki jangkauan generalisasi pada dimensi tertentu

pada sejumlah daerah substantif (Noeng Muhadjir,2002: 126).

Teori formal didapat dengan memunculkan analisis data secukupnya dan

kasus secukupnya bagi peneliti sehingga peneliti menjadi yakin bahwa ia tidak

menjelaskan kasus dalam situasi tunggal sehingga untuk memunculkannya,

membutuhkan waktu panjang (Glaser,1978) dan dengan refleksi (Strauss &

Corbin,1998) sehingga proses analisis bergerak dari:

a. Dari sebuah koding data terbuka ke koding aksial melalui identifikasi kategori

inti data.

b. Melalui penggunaan catatan teoritikal untuk menangkap pengertian

bagaimana kategori saling terkait lalu bergerak ke analisis jaringan interaksi

diantara kategori (dan properties mereka).

11
 c. Kemudian bergerak kepada konstruksi teori substantif, melalui analisis

kekuatan dari bagaimana kategori inti dan model jaringan tepat atau sesuai

dengan data baru.

6. Memoing. Penelitian Grounded Theory mengehendaki peneliti membuat catatan

(memo) untuk mengelaborasi ide-ide yang berhubungan dengan data dan kategori

yang dikodekan selama penelitian berlangsung. Proses itu disebut memoing.

Memo merupakan catatan yang dibuat peneliti bagi dirinya sendiri dalam rangka

menyusun hipotesis tentang sebuah kategori, kususnya tentang hubungan-

hubungan antara kategori-kategori yang ditemukan. Menurut Dick (2005),

penulisan memo harus harus diberikan prioritas utama karena ide tentang

hubungan-hubungan antara kategori-kategori bisa muncul kapan saja dan peneliti

harus segera mencatatnya.

2.3. Prosedur Pelaksanaan Penelitian Gorunded theory

Penelitian Grounded Theory diawali dengan mengambil perhatian pada suatu

wilayah kajian dan diikuti oleh pengumpulan data dari berbagai sumber dengan

menggunakan berbagai teknik, khususnya wawancara dan obserrvasi lapangan.

Creswell (2008: 432) menjelaskan Grounded Theory dilakukan melalui sebuah

prosedur penjaringan data yang sistematis, pengidentifikasian kategori-kategori (tema-

tema), penghubungan kategori-kategori tersebut, dan pembentukan teori yang

menjelaskan proses tersebut. Dengan demikian teori-teori yang dihasilkan merupakan

12
teori ‘proses’ yang menjelaskan fenomena (tahapan-tahapan proses, tindakan, atau

interaksi yang terjadi di kancah penelitian selama penelitian terjadi).

Dalam makalah ini, pendekatan interpretatif Charmaz (misalnya, refleksivitas,

fleksibel dalam struktur) dan Strauss dan Corbin (1990, 1998) dan Corbin dan Strauss

(2008, 2015) digunakan untuk mengilustrasikan landasan teori prosedur karena

pendekatan sistematis mereka membantu memahami prosedur dalam melakukan

penelitian Grounded Theory, seperti dapat dilihat pada Gambar 2.1. Begitupun, setiap

peneliti dapat mengadopsi dan menyesuaikannya untuk memecahkan berbagai masalah

dan untuk melakukan studi yang beragam.

Sumber: Creswell dan Poth, 2018

Gambar 2.1. Prosedur Penelitian Grounded Theory

13
 Begitupun, penulis mencoba untuk menjabarkan langkah prosedur dalam

melakukan penelitian grounded Theory.

a. Determine if grounded theory is best suited to study the research problem.

Grounded Theory adalah desain yang baik untuk digunakan ketika teori tidak

tersedia untuk menjelaskan atau memahami suatu proses. Literatur mungkin

memiliki model yang tersedia, tetapi mereka dikembangkan dan diuji pada sampel

dan populasi selain yang menarik bagi peneliti kualitatif. Selain itu, teori mungkin

ada, tetapi tidak lengkap karena tidak membahas variabel atau kategori yang

berpotensi berharga yang menarik bagi peneliti. Di sisi praktis, teori mungkin

diperlukan untuk menjelaskan bagaimana orang mengalami suatu fenomena, dan

teori dasar yang dikembangkan oleh peneliti akan memberikan kerangka umum

seperti itu.

b. Focus the interview questions on understanding how individuals experience the

process and identify the steps in the process. Setelah awalnya mengeksplorasi

masalah, peneliti kemudian kembali ke sampel dan mengajukan pertanyaan yang

lebih rinci yang membantu membentuk fase pengkodean aksial, seperti ini: Apa

yang menjadi inti dari proses (fenomena inti)? Apa yang mempengaruhi atau

menyebabkan fenomena ini terjadi (kondisi kausal)? Strategi apa yang digunakan

selama proses (strategi)? Efek apa yang terjadi (konsekuensi)? Pertanyaan-

pertanyaan ini biasanya ditanyakan dalam wawancara, meskipun bentuk data lain

juga dapat dikumpulkan, seperti observasi, dokumen, dan materi audiovisual.

14
 Intinya adalah mengumpulkan informasi yang cukup untuk mengembangkan (atau

memenuhi) model sepenuhnya. Ini mungkin melibatkan 20 sampai 60 wawancara.

c. Theory-building emerges through the simultaneous and iterative data collection,

analysis, and memoing processes. Dalam memoing, peneliti menuliskan ide-ide

tentang teori yang berkembang di seluruh prosedur data dalam upaya menemukan

pola (Lempert, 2007). Peran memoing penting untuk pengembangan teori (Corbin

dan Strauss, 2015). Dijelaskan bahwa menulis memo harus dimulai dengan sesi

analitis pertama dan berlanjut selama proses penelitian dan memo dimulai sebagai

representasi dasar pemikiran dan tumbuh dalam kompleksitas, kepadatan,

kejelasan, dan akurasi seiring dengan kemajuan penelitian.

d. Structure the various analysis procedures as open, axial, and selective coding

and follow traditions. Dalam koding terbuka, peneliti membentuk kategori

informasi tentang fenomena yang sedang dipelajari informasi segmentasi. Dalam

setiap kategori, simpatisan menemukan beberapa properti, atau subkategori, dan

mencari datanya membuat dimensi.

e. Articulate a substantive-level theory for communication purposes. Teori tingkat

substantif dapat diuji kemudian untuk verifikasi empirisnya dengan data kuantitatif

untuk menentukan apakah dapat digeneralisasikan untuk sampel dan populasi

(lihat prosedur desain metode campuran, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Alternatifnya, penelitian dapat berakhir pada titik ini dengan menghasilkan teori

sebagai tujuan penelitian.

15
f. Present the theory as a discussion or model. Penulisan terkait dengan setiap aspek

dalam melakukan penelitian Grounded Theory dan bagaimana Grounded Theory

disajikan tergantung pada audiens dan proses yang sedang dijelaskan (misalnya,

lihat Birks & Mills, 2015; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Struktur

pelaporan umum mencakup pengantar untuk membiasakan pembaca dengan

proses (atau tindakan) yang dimaksudkan untuk dijelaskan oleh teori, prosedur

penelitian untuk memberikan dasar pemikiran teori dasar dan detail tentang

pengumpulan dan analisis data, deskripsi teori yang melibatkan kategori utama

dari pengkodean terbuka, kondisi di sekitar fenomena inti dari pengkodean aksial,

dan proposisi yang menggambarkan keterkaitan antar kategori dalam model dari

pengkodean selektif.

Secara umum berdasarkan proses metodologis dalam umumnya penelitian,

prosedur dapat dilakukan berdasarkan langkah berikut:

a. Merumuskan Masalah

Substansi perumusan masalah dalam metode grounded theory bersifat umum yaitu

masih dalam bentuk pertanyaan yang memberikan kebebasan dalam menggali berbagai

fenomena secara umum maupun secara khusus, namun belum sampai pada penegasan

atas variabel apa saja yang berhubungan dengan ruang lingkup permasalahan dan

variabel yang apa saja yang tidak berhubungan. Setelah data yang bersifat umum telah

dikumpulkan, kemudian rumusan masalahnya semakin dipersempit dan lebih berfokus

pada sifat data yang dikumpulkan dengan maksud sebagai pedoman dalam menyusun

16
teori. Masalah penelitian merupakan bagian integral dari metode, sebagai langkah

penting pertama dalam urutan kegiatan penelitian.

b. Melakukan kajian teoritis.

Penelitian kualitatif dengan metode grounded theory tidak bertujuan untuk

menguji kebenaran suatu teori dan tidak terpengaruh oleh kajian literatur, juga tidak

bertumpu pada berbagai variabel yang berasal dari suatu teori, karena akan dapat

menghambat adanya pengembangan rumusan teori baru. Peneliti dalam penelitian yang

menggunakan metode grounded theory belum memiliki pengetahuan mengenai objek

yang akan ditelitinya termasuk jenis data dan berbagai variabel yang kemungkinan

akan ditemukan. Apabila si peneliti dalam penelitiannya menemukan teori baru yang

mempunyai hubungan dengan teori sebelumnya, maka temuan teori baru tersebut dapat

digunakan sebagai sumbangan teori untuk memperluas teori yang sudah ada. Apabila

dalam penelitian diperoleh temuan baru yang berbeda dengan teori sebelumnya, maka

dapat dijelaskan mengenai hal tersebut. Tahap ini diadakan perbandingan teori yang

muncul dari hasil penelitian dengan teori yang ada dalam literatur. Maka padaTahap

ini diadakan perbandingan teori yang muncul dari hasil penelitian dengan teori yang

ada dalam literatur. Dalam hal ini dilakukan kegiatan membandingkan kerangka kerja

yang bertentangan dan kerangka kerja yang selaras. Perbandingan ini dimaksudkan

untuk menyempurnakan definisi konstruk dan meningkatkan validitas internal maupun

untuk meningkatkan validitas eksternal.

17
a. Pengumpulan data dan penyampelan.

Grounded theory menggunakan peneliti sebagai instrumen pengumpulan

data. Pada tahap ini dilakukan aktivitas definisi pertanyaan penelitian dan definisi dari

konstruk apriori. Metode yang dapat digunakan dalam proses pengumpulan datanya

adalah metode observasi dan wawancara secara mendalam yang secara umum tidak

jauh berbeda dengan metode observasi dan wawancara pada penelitian kualitatif

lainnya. Catatan lapangan bisa berasal dari wawancara

informal, kuliah, seminar, pertemuan kelompok ahli, artikel, surat kabar, daftar internet

mail, acara televisi, bahkan percakapan dengan teman-teman juga merupakan data bagi

metode grounded theory. Grounded theory sangat menekankan pada penggalian secara

mendalam data prilaku yang sedang berlangsung untuk melihat prosesnya secara

langsung dan bertujuan untuk melihat berbagai hal yang memiliki hubungan sebab

akibat. Jadi dapat dikatakan bahwa penentuan sampel subjek dalam penelitian

grounded theory tidak dapat direncanakan dari awal dilakukan penelitian, namun

subjek yang diteliti akan berproses nantinya sesuai dengan keadaan di lapangan pada

saat dilakukan pengumpulan data. Sebagai contoh, secara khusus menyatakan bahwa

pertanyaan penelitian harus terbuka dan umum daripada dibentuk sebagai hipotesis

spesifik, dan bahwa teori harus muncul untuk sebuah fenomena yang relevan kepada

peneliti.

18
b. Tahap analisis data.

Proses mengumpulkan dan menganalisis data pada Grounded Theory merupakan

proses yang saling berhubungan dan harus dilakukan secara bergantian. Analisis data

dalam metode grounded theory dilakukan dalam bentuk pengkodean, yang merupakan

proses penguraian data, pembuatan konsep dan penyusunan kembali dengan cara yang

baru. Pada proses analisis data, dilakukan upaya mencari sekaligus menata secara

sistematis catatan peneliti dari hasil observasi, wawancara, dan lainnya untuk

meningkatkan pemahaman peneliti tentang kasus yang diteliti dan menyajikannya

sebagai temuan, yang kemudian dilanjutkan dengan berupaya menemukan makna

sehingga pemahaman peneliti terhadap fenomena dapat meningkat untuk tujuan

teorisasi (Muhadjir, 2002 :142).

Proses analisa data diawali dengan pengkodean serta pengkategorian

data. Laporan penelitian biasanya berupa diskusi naratif dari proses dan temuan

penelitian. Adapun prosesnya diawali dengan proses open coding yang merupakan

bagian dari analisis data, dimana peneliti melakukan

identifikasi, penamaan, kategorisasi dan penguraian gejala yang ditemukan dalam teks

hasil dari wawancara, observasi, dan catatan harian peneliti itu sendiri. Berikutnya

adalah proses axial coding. Selama proses coding ini diadakan aktivitas penulisan

memo teoritik. Memo bukan sekedar gagasan kaku, namun terus berubah dan

berkembang atau direvisi sepanjang proses penelitian berlangsung. Lebih lanjut,

19
analisis data pada Grounded Theory akan dibahas pada sub bahasan khusus pada

makalah ini.

c. Tahap penyimpulan atau penulisan laporan.

Tahap pengambilan simpulan pada penelitian kualitatif dengan menggunakan

metode grounded theory tidak didasarkan pada generalisasi tapi lebih ke spesifikasi

nya. Penelitian grounded theory dimaksudkan untuk membuat spesifikasi-spesifikasi

terhadap (Budiasih, 2013): 1) kondisi yang menjadi sebab terjadinya suatu fenomena,

2) tindakan atau interaksi yang merupakan respon terhadap kondisi tersebut, dan 3)

konsekuensikonsekuensi yang timbul dari tindakan atau interaksi tersebut. Sehinggan

rumusan teoritis yang merupakan hasil akhir yang ditemukan dalam penelitian

grounded theory tidak menjustifikasi keberlakuannya terhadap semua populasi namun

hanya digunakan untuk situasi atau kondisi tersebut saja.

2.4. Prosedur Analisis dan Interpretasi Data

Proses analisa data secara keseluruhan melibatkan usaha memaknai data yang

berupa teks atau gambar (Creswell, 2013). Analisa data merupakan proses

berkelanjutan yang membutuhkan refleksi terus-menerus terhadap data, mengajukan

pertanyaanpertanyaan analitis, dan menulis catatan singkat sepanjang penelitian

(Creswell, 2007; Rossman dan Rallis, 2003. Dalam metode penelitian Grounded

Theory, analisis data dilakukan dengan melakukan kodifikasi terhadap data dengan tiga

tahapan (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 2006), yaitu:

20
a. Open Coding/Open Sampling. Tahap ini dilakukan untuk segmentasi informasi

mengenai pembentukan kategori awal atas fenomena yang diteliti. Data yang

digunakan adalah hasil wawancara, observasi, dan memo (catatan-catatan

penelitian) (Cresswell, 2012).

b. Axial Coding. Pada bagian ini, peneliti memilih satu kategori sebagai proses

sentral dan menghubungkannya dengan kategori yang lain. Kategori-kategori ini

biasanya terdiri dari (Creswell, 2012) :

1) Causal Conditions: Kategori kondisi yang mempengaruhi kategori inti (core

category/phenomena)

2) Context /condition: Kondisi spesifik yang mempengaruhi strategi

3) Core Category/Phenomena: Ide utama atas fenomena inti sebuah proses.

4) Intervening conditions: Kondisi umum kontekstual yang mempengaruhi

strategi.

5) Strategies: Tindakan spesifik atau interaksi yang dihasilkan dari fenomena

inti.

6) Consequences: Hasil yang didapat setelah menjalankan strategi Seluruh

tahapan ini disebut sebagai coding paradigm, yaitu tahap yang

menggambarkan hubungan timbal balik (interrelationship) causal conditions,

strategies, contextual and intervening conditions, dan consequences.

(Cresswell, 2012).

21
c. Selective Coding. Merupakan proses pemilihan kategori inti, pengaitan kategori

inti terhadap kategori lainnya secara sistematis, pengabsahan hubungannya,

mengganti kategori yang perlu diperbaiki dan dikembangkan lebih lanjut. Adapun

dalam pengodean selektif ini dapat dilakukan dengan:

1) menjelaskan dan menganalisis alur cerita (menjelaskan alur cerita,

mengidentifikasi cerita, konseptualisasi alur cerita, menentukan fenomena

yang menonjol, dan hambatan dalam menjelaskan alur cerita).

2) mengaitkan kategori lain diseputar kategori (kembali ke cerita, dan kesulitan

dalam pengurutan kategori),

3) menentukan sifat dan ukuran inti cerita,

4) Mengabsahkan hubungan (mengungkap pola-polanya, mensistematiskan dan

menetapkan hubungan, dan cara-cara menemukan kombinasi tersebut, dan

mengelompokan kategori.

2.5. Contoh Penelitian Grounded Theory

Meski tergolong metode penelitian kualitatif yang sulit, tetapi studi Grounded
Theory juga banyak dilakukan oleh beberapa peneliti dibanyak bidang. Salah satunya
penelitian pada bidang Bisnis yang dilakukan oleh Branko Božiča, Sabina Siebertb,
dan Graeme Martinc (2020) yang dilaporkan pada sebuah artikel berjudul “A grounded
theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a
retailer” yang dipublikasikan di jurnal terindeks pada Q1 Scopus Journal Of Business
Reseacrh, Vol. 109 pada Maret 2020 halaman 440-449. Penelitian ini mendeksirpsikan
tentang pengalaman pelanggan dari kerusakan dan pemulihan kepercayaan yang nyata.
Secara lanjut, penelitian ini dapat dijelaskan sebagai berikut:

22
Fokus Penelitian. Fokus studi pada perbaikan kepercayaan pelanggan setelah skandal

pemalsuan makanan. Penelitian ini konteksnya terkait dengan konteks skandal

pemalsuan makanan utama - yang disebut “horsemeat scandal” yang terjadi pada

tahun 2013 di berbagai negara Eropa, termasuk Inggris. Fokus penyelidikan pada satu

aspek skandal: pelanggaran kepercayaan dan pemulihan antara pengecer makanan dan

pelanggan yang terlibat. Pada studi ini disertakan pengecer makanan Tesco, Asda, Lidl

dan Aldi, karena mereka mewakili sebagian besar pasar ritel makanan Inggris dalam

hal ukuran dan penjualan, terlibat dalam pelanggaran kepercayaan, dan kemudian

terlibat dalam aktivitas perbaikan kepercayaan yang ekstensif (lihat The Telegraph ,

2013a, 2013b). Pada artikel ini dijelaskan bahwa di mata pelanggan, pengecer

melanggar kepercayaan mereka dengan menjual produk yang terkontaminasi yang

menimbulkan risiko kesehatan dan kesejahteraan, karena kurangnya pengawasan dan

sistem kontrol yang buruk. Oleh karena itu, lokus kepemilikan masalah ada pada

pengecer, dan pelanggaran kepercayaan dapat digolongkan sebagai pelanggaran

kepercayaan berbasis kompetensi (Mayer et al., 1995). Kompetensi mengacu pada

"kelompok keterampilan, kompetensi, dan karakteristik yang memungkinkan suatu

pihak memiliki pengaruh dalam beberapa domain tertentu" (Mayer et al., 1995, hal.

717).

Pengumpulan Data. Penelitian ini mengadopsi metodologi Grounded Theory yang

dijelaskan oleh Charmaz (2006, 2014), Glaser dan Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978), dan

Locke (2001). Prosedur penelitian dimulai dengan mencari peserta yang mengalami

kerusakan dan pemulihan kepercayaan. Data dikumpulkan melalui wawancara kepada

23
51 orang partisipan. Dijelaskan bahwa sebagian besar partisipan berusia akhir dua

puluhan atau awal tiga puluhan dan tinggal di Skotlandia, dan 59% pelanggan yang

berpartisipasi adalah perempuan. Kebangsaan peserta termasuk Amerika, Belgia,

Bulgaria, Kanada, Cina, Belanda, Prancis, India, Italia, Polandia, Portugis, Skotlandia,

Singapura, Slovenia, dan Ukraina. Mereka memiliki latar belakang sosial-ekonomi dan

pendidikan yang berbeda: kualifikasi sekolah menengah (termasuk bartender, sopir

taksi, sopir bus, konsultan / perwakilan penjualan aktif dan pensiunan, pengusaha, dan

sipir); gelar pendidikan tinggi (termasuk pemodal, dosen, administrator sekolah,

manajer akun utama, dan konsultan); dan pelanggan yang belajar untuk gelar

pendidikan tinggi (termasuk mahasiswa ilmu sosial dan sains sarjana dan

pascasarjana). Sebelum skandal daging kuda, semua pelanggan yang berpartisipasi

adalah pemakan daging. Dari sini dapat diketahui bahwa penelitian yang dilakukan

tidak mempertimbangkan proporsi yang seimbang terkait dengan usia maupun jenis

kelamin partisipannya. Penelitian dilakukan selama 18 bulan sejak pertama kali terjadi

skandal. Dalam wawancara semi-terstruktur kami meminta orang yang kami

wawancarai untuk "menceritakan kisah mereka" tentang pemulihan kepercayaan

mereka. Wawancara dilakukan selama 40-70 menit yang direkam secara digital dan

ditrankrip secara verbatim. Selain wawancara, penelitian juga mengumpulkan data

melalui dokemn dan berbagai informasi yang mengacu pada skandal yang terjadi dari

berbagai sumber situs web.

Analisi Data. Analisis data penelitian dimulai dengan melakukan pengkodean awal

barus demi baris pada hasil transkrip wawancara. Kemudian memberi kode pada setiap

24
fragmen dengan label yang menangkap makna dari hasil wawancara. Setelah itu

dilakukan perbandingan terus menerus setiap teks yang dikodekan dan kode awal yang

sesuai (yaitu perbandingan konstan). Dijelaskan juga selama analisis dari tiga

wawancara pertama, kode-kode awal berkembang biak. Analisis kemudian diakhiri

dengan menggunakan analitis memoing (Charmaz, 2006) dan kemudian membuat

diagram (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1978) pada saaat: konseptualisasi data memadat dan

menangkap sebagian besar data, dan ketika data yang masuk tidak memberi tahu hal

baru tentang konsep yang dikembangkan dan hubungannya. Secara grafis, proses

analisis data pada penelitian dapat dilihat sebagai berikut:

Gambar 2.2. Struktur Analisis Data (Božič, Siebert, & Martin, 2020)

Berdasarkan contoh penerapan penelitian Grounded Theory di atas, dapat

diketahui bahwa penelitian grounded memang dilakukan dalam waktu yang cukup

25
lama untuk pengambilan data. Pada penelitian diatas 18 bulan dilalui hanya untuk

melakukan pengumpulan data, meski memang analisis telah dialkukan bersamaan

dengan pengumpulan data. Pada penelitian ini dapat juga diketahui bahwa peneliti

tidak menjelaskan secara detik karakteristik partisipan. Dengan jumlah partisipan

sebanya 51 orang, sepertinya adalah jumlah yang sangat besar untuk digunakan dalam

penelitian kualitatif yang seharusnya hanya menggunakan partisipan yang sedikit agar

informasi yang diperoleh dapat lebih detil dan komprehensif.

BAB III
PENUTUP

26
 Berdasarkan pembahasan di atas, dapat ditarik beberapa kesimpulan
bahwaGrounded theory adalah suatu yang bersifat konseptual atau teori sebagai hasil
pemikiran induktif dari data yang dihasilkan dalam penelitian mengenai suatu
fenomena. Atau suatu teori yang dibangun dari data suatu fenomena dan dianalisis
secara induktif, bukan hasil pengujian teori yang telah ada.

Prinsip-prinsip grounded theory meliputi: perumusan masalah, deteksi

fenomena, penurunan teori, pengembangan teori, penilaian teori, dan grounded theory
yang direkonstruksi. Menurut Creswell pengumpulan data dalam studi grounded theory
merupakan proses “zigzag”, keluar lapangan untuk memperoleh informasi,
menganalisis data, dan seterusnya. Partisipan yang diwawancarai dipilih secara teoritis
–dalam theoritical sampling- untuk membantu peneliti membentuk teori yang paling
baik. Proses analisis data dalam grounded theory meliputi: pengodean terbuka (open
coding), pengodean poros (axial coding), pengodean selektif (selective coding),
dan proposition.

Hal yang spesifik yang membedakan pengumpulan data pada

penelitian Grounded Theory dari pendekatan kualitatif lainnya adalah pada pemilihan
fenomena yang dikumpulkan. Paling tidak, pada Grounded Theory sangat ditekankan
untuk menggali data perilaku yang sedang berlangsung (life history) untuk melihat
prosesnya serta ditujukan untuk menangkap hal-hal yang bersifat kausalitas.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

27
Božič, B., Siebert, S., & Martin, G. (2020). A grounded theory study of factors and
conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a retailer. Journal of
Business Research, 109(December 2019), 440–448.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.032

Budiasih, I. G. A. N. (2013). Metode Grounded Theory Dalam Riset Kualitatif. Jurnal

Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 9(1), 19–27.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2005). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational

AIlalysis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315609751-1

Dick, Bob (2000) 'Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch'. [Online] Available at

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html

Egan, T. M. (2002). Grounded Theory Research and Theory Building. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 101–107.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400872534-007

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2006). The Discover of Grounded Theory, Strategy For
Qualitatof Research. In วารสารสงั คมศาสตร์วช ิ าการ (Vol. 7). USA: Aldine
Transaction Publisher.

Glaser, B.G. (1978) Advances in The Methodology of Grounded Theory, Sociology

Press, Mill Valley, CA. Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics Of Grounded Theory
Analysis, Emergence vs. Forcing, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine
Publishing Co., New York NY.

Glaser, B.G. (1978) Advances in The Methodology of Grounded Theory, Sociology

Press, Mill Valley, CA.

Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics Of Grounded Theory Analysis, Emergence vs. Forcing,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA

Muhadjir, N. 2002. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif Edisi IV. Yogyakarta: Rake

Sarasin.

Strauss, A. L. (1987) Qualitative Research For Social Scientists, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures And Techniques. 2nd. edition, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

28
Strauss, Anselm. & Corbin, Juliet. 2003. Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Kualitatif.
Yogyakarta : Pustaka Pelajar

Creswell, John W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qulitative Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

29
 Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

A grounded theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer T

trust recovery in a retailer
⁎
Branko Božiča, , Sabina Siebertb, Graeme Martinc
a
NEOMA Business School (Rouen Campus), 1 rue du Marechal Juin, 76825 Mont-Saint-Aignan, France
b
Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
c
School of Business, University of Dundee, 1-3 Perth Rd, Dundee DD1 4JW, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although in recent years academic interest in trust repair following a breach has grown significantly, we still
Trust know very little about how trust repair happens and in what contexts. This study focuses on customer trust repair
Customer trust following a major food adulteration scandal. Through a grounded theory study of customer experiences of real-
Trust recovery life trust breakdown and recovery, we identify four factors (absence of further transgressions, positive personal
Trust repair
experience with the retailer, the retailer’s normal functioning, and the normal behavior of other customers) and
Grounded theory
three contextual conditions (passage of time, institutional context, and immediate trust repair strategies) asso-
ciated with customers’ trust recovery in food retailers. In addition, we show that trust recovery is not necessarily
a direct result of the trustee’s trust repair activities, as theorized previously, before discussing the implications of
our findings for theory and practice.

1. Introduction
Research across different disciplines and spanning several decades
has shown that trust is usually positive and desirable for organizations
and stakeholders (e.g., Axelrod, 1984; Barber, 1983; Coleman, 1990;
Dasgupta, 1988; Deutsch, 1958; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Fox, 1966;
Gambetta, 1988; Giddens, 1990; Goffman, 1963; Hardin, 2002;
Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpandé, 1992; Moorman, Deshpandé, &
Zaltman, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Rotter, 1967). We use a standard
definition of trust in the organizational context as “a psychological state
comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, p. 395) (see Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995; Moorman et al., 1992, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994, for other
prominent definitions of trust). Trust in organizations is associated with
customer loyalty, commitment, cooperation, competitive advantage,
and high turnover (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Kramer & Pittinsky, 2012;
Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002). Among
other things, trust helps customers reduce the perceived complexity
associated with buying activities (Luhmann, 1979).
The benefits of trust are lost when organizations are implicated in
misconduct or scandals (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009; Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, &
Dirks, 2004; Kramer & Pittinsky, 2012). However, it is not only the
organizations that “misbehave” that suffer, as reputational scandals
tend to lower societal trust in business in general (Kramer & Pittinsky,
2012), especially in an era of social media, in which social disapproval
spreads rapidly and often indiscriminately (Wang, Reger, & Pfarrer,
forthcoming). Thus, the question of how to repair trust has become of
important theoretical and practical concern for management re-
searchers (Bachmann, Gillespie, & Priem, 2015; Bunkley & Detroit,
2011; Kramer & Pittinsky, 2012; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996).
Trust repair is one of the research areas identified by Lyon,
Möllering, and Saunders (2015), along with antecedents to trust, trust-
building processes, contextual influences on trust development, deci-
sion-making processes and trust, and consequences of trust. Lyon et al.
(2015) noted that trust repair is the least theorized of these research
fields. We have only identified twenty-nine research articles on con-
sumer trust repair published to date (see Table 1 for more details). By
way of comparison, Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) identified 375 articles
on trust antecedents alone published between 2000 and 2011.
Trust scholars have been calling for more research on trust repair
(e.g., Bachmann et al., 2015; Mayer, 2014; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis,
2007). Much of the existing trust repair literature focuses on testing
trust repair models, without proper consideration of factors and con-
ditions that operate in specific contexts. This is unfortunate, because we
know from other areas of trust research (e.g., Möllering, 2006) that
trust is a multifaceted phenomenon, associated with numerous factors
and contextual conditions. Understanding these factors and conditions

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: branko.bozic@neoma-bs.fr (B. Božič).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.032
Received 5 November 2018; Received in revised form 19 December 2019; Accepted 20 December 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 Table 1
Literature on the recovery of customer trust.
Source Focus Methodology Key findings Trustee
B. Božič, et al.

Bansal and Zahedi (2015)
Brown, Buchholtz, and Dunn
(2016)
Brühl, Basel, and Kury (2018)
Chen, Wu, and Chang (2013)
Cui et al. (2018)
Debab and Yateem (2012)
Dietz and Gillespie (2012)
Eberl et al. (2015)
Friend, Costley, and Brown
(2010)
Fuoli et al. (2017)
Gillespie et al. (2012)
Gillespie et al. (2014)
Apology, denial, and no response Experiment with 364 students Apology was universally effective; denial worked for hacking; inaction was Organization
not effective
Role of goodwill and firm culture for trust repair Conceptual The greater the moral salience, the greater the need for an investment in Organization
goodwill to re-establish trust
Apology, excuse, and refusal for trust recovery Experiment with 368 participants Apology does not necessarily lead to trust recovery Organization
Coping strategies involved in customer trust repair Survey of 513 e-shoppers Informational repair directly rebuilt customer trust. Positive moods serve as a Organization
mediator in trust recovery
Types of apologies and compensations Experiment involving 440 Apology with internal attribution is more effective than apology with external Organization
participants attribution for integrity-trust violations. The opposite is the case for
competency-trust violations. Overcompensating is not necessarily optimal
Various trust repair factors Survey of 200 retail bank Trust recovery involves banks, the central bank, and the government Organization
customers
Six cases of organization-level trust repair through the lens Case study The authors found support for the OLTR framework (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009) Organization
of the OLTR framework (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009)
Trust repair after integrity violations Case study Tightening organizational rules is required for trust recovery Organization
‘Nasty’ retail shopping experiences Storytelling as memory work Acceptance of responsibility and apology are required for trust repair Organization
involving nine participants
Effect of apology and denial on individuals’ trust in a Experiment Denials were found to be superior to apologies Organization
company
Study of global financial crisis (GFC) from a trust Case study The authors found support for the OLTR framework (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009) Organization/Financial
perspective to identify insights and principles for the market
practical repair of institutional trust
Organization-level trust repair framework (OLTR) and Case study The case study supported the OLTR framework (Gillespie & Dietz, 2009). Organization
reintegration theory with regard to various stakeholders Reestablishing a positive organizational identity among the workforce,
changing the guard at the top, and reforming targeting procedures and culture

441
Guo, Zhang, Wang, Li, and Tao
(2018)
Huff (2005)
Knight, Mather, and Mathieson
(2015)
La and Choi (2012)
Liao, Luo, and Gurung (2009)
Mattila (2009)
Meyer et al. (2012)
Nakayachi and Watabe (2005)
Richards et al. (2011)
Roberts (2011)
Spicer and Okhmatovskiy
(2015)
Utz et al. (2009)
van Laer and de Ruyter (2010)
Green brand trust repair after greenwashing Experiment with 240 participants
Development of customer trust in service providers Conceptual and qualitative
Role of firm’s apology in trust recovery Experiment with 284 students
Repair of customer-firm relationships (loyalty) after service Survey of 199 participants
failure
Trust repair for an online retailer Survey of 108 online students
Trust repair by service firms Experiment with 143 students
Nature and dimensions of customer trust in food Qualitative study
Effects of voluntary hostage posting for repairing the Three experiments with 198, 313,
organization’s trustworthiness and 44 students, respectively
Supermarkets’ manufacturing of customer trust Conceptual and qualitative
Low trust of Chinese customers Conceptual and qualitative
Repair in the Russian bank deposit market Survey of 2400 Russians
An e-vendor’s trust repair effort Experiments with 1141 and 448
participants, respectively
Trust recovery after integrity-based trust violation Experiments involving 153, 145,
and 95 students, respectively
were also required
Firms should adopt a “timely-considered-timely” or “timely-considered- Organization
considered” brand strategy with three separate stages of brand trust repair for
optimal results
Customer forgiveness led to regained trust after a trust violation Organization
Apology led to customer trust recovery when perceived as sincere Organization
Customer affection was important for trust recovery Organization
Perceptions of trustworthiness were important for trust recovery Organization
Causal explanation pointing to an external cause of the failure, together with Organization
a sincere apology, recovered customers’ trust in a service firm more
effectively than denial
Increase in local food production and consumption led to greater trust of Food system
metropolitan customers
Voluntary hostage posting by the organization improved customers’ Organization
perceptions of the organization’s trustworthiness
Supermarkets used three strategies to generate customer trust: reputational Organization
enhancement, direct quality claims, and discursive claims
Corporate social responsibility should be associated with the recovery of Food industry
customer trust in the food industry
Identifies trust recovery due to increased regulation by the state and trust Banking system
recovery due to state ownership in a specific bank
A trustee’s apology was more effective than denial of responsibility for Organization
customer perceptions of the trustee’s trustworthiness, independent of the trust
violation type
A narrative apology was superior for restoration of integrity (trust) than any Individuals
other response tested (narrative denial, analytical denial, and analytical
apology)
(continued on next page)
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
B. Božič, et al. Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448

and moving beyond testing stage models of trust repair can improve the
ways in which organizations recover from reputational scandals. This
echoes Mayer (2014) observation that we still know very little about
how trust repair happens.
Organization

Organization

Organization

Organization

Organization
This study throws light on how trust repair happens, specifically
Trustee

customer trust repair. In our investigation we draw on grounded theory

methodology (Charmaz, 2006, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser,
1978), which is an appropriate method for inductive theory-building
Identifies four novel factors (absence of further transgressions, positive personal about under-theorized phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss,
Brand users that develop initial trust in telecom operators tend to transfer

Trust recovery is a function of a trustor’s propensity to forgive, a trustee’s

behavior of other customers) and three contextual conditions (passage of time,

experience with the retailer, the retailer’s normal functioning, and the normal
Recovered perceptions of the firm’s integrity, competence, and customer

recovery. Also shows that trust recovery is not necessarily a direct result of a
institutional context, and immediate trust repair strategies) required for trust
apology or promise and apology, and customer trust in the government

1967). It enabled us to make two contributions to the literature on trust

Affective, functional, and information repair actions improved trust via

repair. The first is to shed light on theoretical aspects of trust recovery

that have not previously been considered. Our study of customer trust
repair following a trust breach by a retailer reveals four novel factors
(absence of further transgressions, positive personal experience with
the retailer, the retailer’s normal functioning, and the normal behavior
trustee’s trust repair activities, as theorized previously

of other customers) and three conditions, or inner and outer contexts, of

change (Pettigrew, 2012) (passage of time, institutional context, and
immediate trust repair strategies) associated with trust recovery. The
second contribution is to show that trust recovery is not necessarily a
direct result of a trustee’s trust repair activities, as previously theorized.
their trust to channel distributors
forgiveness led to trust recovery

2. Customer trust recovery: Prior theory and research

positive emotions

We identified twenty-nine studies focusing on customer trust repair

(summarized in Table 1). Broadly speaking, these studies can be divided
Key findings

into two categories: trustee-centric and trustor-centric explanations of

trust repair. Trustee-centric explanations involve factors that represent
various trust repair strategies that trust violators can pursue actively to
facilitate trust repair. Trustor-centric explanations focus on the role of
the trustor in trust repair.
Experiment with 220 students

Trustee-centric explanations appear to dominate trust repair re-

Survey of 471 participants

search. The trust repair strategies identified in this research stream can
be further divided into verbal and substantive strategies. Verbal stra-
Conceptual paper

tegies include apology, denial, explanation, communication, and pro-

Grounded theory
Methodology

mises (e.g. Bansal & Zahedi, 2015; Cui, Zhang, Peng, & Chu, 2018;
Fuoli, van de Weijer, & Paradis, 2017; Gillespie, Dietz, & Lockey, 2014;
Survey

Mattila, 2009; Utz, Matzat, & Snijders, 2009; van Laer & de Ruyter,
2010; Xie & Peng, 2009). Substantive strategies involve penance, hos-
tage posting (e.g. Meyer, Coveney, Henderson, Ward, & Taylor, 2012;
Organizational trust repair with customers after negative

Nakayachi & Watabe, 2005; Richards, Lawrence, & Burch, 2011), and
various reforming interventions associated with modifications of orga-
Trust repair strategies creating positive emotions for

nizational system components. These include organizational reforms,

restructuring, and regulation (e.g. Eberl, Geiger, & Aßländer, 2015;
customers and consequently repairing trust

Trust recovery process in naturalistic settings

Gillespie et al., 2014), such as changing policies and operational pro-

cedures, governance reforms, cultural changes, redesigning incentives
(Gillespie et al., 2014; Gillespie, Hurley, Dietz, & Bachmann, 2012),
changing manufacturing processes (Meyer et al., 2012), corporate so-
cial responsibility (Roberts, 2011), and tightening organizational rules
(Eberl et al., 2015). From a processual perspective, these reforming
Customer trust repair

interventions normally occur after immediate trust repair activities and

Trust repair process

analysis of the causes of the trust breach. For example, in Gillespie and
Dietz (2009) integrative model of trust repair, reforms represent a third
stage in the trust repair process. Research shows that several trust re-
publicity
Focus

pair strategies in combination are more likely to be effective.

When considering the role of the trustor in the trust repair process,
some studies identified forgiveness and emotions (Aquino, Grover,
Goldman, & Folger, 2003; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; Xie & Peng, 2009)
Wu, Chien, Chen, and Wu

as important factors associated with trust repair. For example, Xie and
Yu, Wu, and Lin (2017)

Peng (2009) demonstrated that forgiveness is positively associated with

Xie and Peng (2009)
Table 1 (continued)

trust repair after an organization receives negative publicity. Aquino

et al. (2003) argued that addressing negative emotions is crucial for
Zhang (2012)

trust repair. We now outline the methodology underpinning our study.

(2013)

This study
Source

442
B. Božič, et al.
3. Methods
3.1. Context
Our research is situated in the context of a major food adulteration
scandal – the so-called “horsemeat scandal” that occurred in 2013 in
various European countries, including the UK. The scandal represented
a massive trust violation, involving many food industry players, in-
cluding abattoirs, food manufacturers, food retailers and customers, the
public and other stakeholders (Harris Interactive, 2013a, 2013b).
We focused our investigation on one aspect of the scandal: trust
violation and recovery between implicated food retailers and custo-
mers. We included the food retailers Tesco, Asda, Lidl and Aldi, as they
represent a major part of the UK food retail market in terms of size and
sales, were involved in trust violation, and subsequently engaged in
extensive trust repair activities (see The Telegraph, 2013a, 2013b).
Meanwhile customers are important stakeholders, vital for organiza-
tional success (Freeman, 1984).
In the eyes of customers, retailers violated their trust by selling
contaminated products presenting a risk to health and wellbeing, be-
cause of a lack of oversight and poor control systems. Hence, the locus
of ownership of the problem was on the retailers, and the trust breach
can be classed as a competency-based trust violation (Mayer et al.,
1995). Competency refers to “that group of skills, competencies, and
characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some spe-
cific domain” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717).
The surveys commissioned by the UK food-safety authorities (see
Harris Interactive, 2013a, 2013b), newspaper reports (see BBC, 2013)
and our own data suggest that customers whose trust in the retailer was
damaged, subsequently regained this trust.
3.2. Data and sample
Adopting grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006, 2014;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Locke, 2001), we began our data
collection by searching for participants who experienced trust break-
down and recovery. Such purposeful sampling (Charmaz, 2006; Locke,
2001; Patton, 1990) focused on searching for data providing the
greatest opportunity to learn about the phenomenon under study (in
this research, trust recovery) (Patton, 1990).
As the study progressed, we turned to theoretical sampling
(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Locke, 2001) to shed light on
the in-process theorizing. In total, we interviewed 51 participants; the
sample size was determined by theoretical/practical saturation
(Charmaz, 2006, 2014; Locke, 2001). Most participants were in their
late twenties or early thirties and lived in Scotland, and 59% of parti-
cipating customers were female. The participants’ nationalities included
American, Belgian, Bulgarian, Canadian, Chinese, Dutch, French, In-
dian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Scottish, Singaporean, Slovenian and
Ukrainian. They had different socio-economic and educational back-
grounds: high school qualifications (including bartenders, a taxi driver,
a bus driver, active and retired sales consultants/representatives, en-
trepreneurs, and a warden); higher education degrees (including fi-
nanciers, a lecturer, school administrators, key accounts managers, and
a consultant); and customers studying for higher education degrees
(including undergraduate and postgraduate social sciences and sciences
students). Before the horsemeat scandal, all participating customers
were meat-eaters.
We collected data approximately eighteen months after the scandal
first came to light which enabled us to capture the complete process of
trust breakdown, repair and rebuilding that evolved over time. In semi-
structured interviews we asked our interviewees to “tell their stories”
about their trust recovery (Morse, 2001). Interviews lasted 40–70 min
each and we used the principles of cognitive interviewing (Fisher &
Geiselman, 2010; Memon & Bull, 1991). We chose this approach be-
cause of its effectiveness in retrieving people’s memories (Fisher &
443
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
Geiselman, 2010; Memon & Bull, 1991). We digitally recorded the in-
terviews and transcribed them verbatim.
By the time we reached 37 interviews we noted that con-
ceptualization of the data had solidified to such a degree that the in-
progress theoretical framework captured most of the incoming data.
Nevertheless, we continued the interviewing process to remain open to
any new insights, and concluded data collection after interviewing 51
participants. We did so because the interviews beyond participant 37
did not provide any novel theoretical insights, and because our con-
ceptual framework captured the trust recovery experiences of these
additional customers. In line with the grounded theory method, we had
reached theoretical saturation and stabilization of our theoretical fra-
mework (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Locke, 2001).
We also gathered documents (e.g. news articles, published surveys)
and information referring to the horsemeat scandal from various web-
sites to gain a deeper understanding of the context. These sources in-
cluded the Food Standards Agency, BBC News, Tesco, Asda, Waitrose,
the Co-operative, Aldi, Lidl, the British Retail Consortium (BRC), Harris
Interactive, TNS BMRB, Ipsos MORI, Kantar Worldpanel, Which?, the
Financial Times, The Guardian and The Telegraph.
3.3. Data analysis
Commencing with the first interview, we examined each line of the
transcribed interviews for underlying meaning (i.e. initial coding) using
line-by-line coding as a heuristic device (Charmaz, 2006). General
questions helped the conceptualization process; for instance, What is
happening in the data fragment? or, What does the data fragment express?
(Charmaz, 2006, 2014). We coded each fragment with a label that
captured its meaning. As our analysis proceeded, we constantly com-
pared each coded line of text with other lines of already coded text
(from different interviews) and their corresponding initial codes (i.e.
constant comparison). We gave data indicating the same concept the
same conceptual label.
During analysis of the first three interviews, initial codes pro-
liferated. Charmaz (2014) guiding question, What larger story does this
group of concepts suggest?, enabled us to reduce the codes substantially
as we coded them into more abstract versions. These in-progress codes
guided our further data collection and analysis. However, line-by-line
coding continued throughout the study to prevent omission of any new
theoretical insights. With new incoming data, our aim was to develop
further in-progress codes and their tentative relationships. We ended
our analysis, which made heavy use of analytical memoing (Charmaz,
2006) and later diagramming (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1978), when our
data conceptualization solidified and captured most of the data, and
when incoming data told us nothing new about the concepts developed
and their relationships.
3.4. Ensuring rigor
To ensure rigor we followed Lincoln and Guba (1985) well-known
criteria for conducting inductive research (i.e. credibility, transfer-
ability, dependability, confirmability). We followed all steps and
guidelines prescribed by the grounded theory method (Charmaz, 2006;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Locke, 2001) including line-by-
line coding, constant comparison, non-leading questions, memoing and
diagraming. This ensured that the theoretical framework we developed
is grounded in many empirical indicators covering a wide range of
empirical observations, and thus reflects participants’ experiences of
trust recovery. In addition, to ensure rigor, we audio-recorded all in-
terviews, read interview transcripts multiple times, asked participants
for clarifications (where necessary), presented our findings to several
participants, kept analytical diaries, ensured participant confidentiality,
and managed data systematically using NVivo 10.
B. Božič, et al. Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448

1st-Order Codes 2nd-Order Concepts

The scandal did not re-occur; the retailers have not done anything wrong Absence of further
since the scandal; no more bad news transgressions CUSTOMERS’
No negative health effects; no change in taste (taste of food stayed the
OBSERVATIONS/
Positive personal EXPERIENCES
same); genuine, beef-like appearance of the products purchased; beef-like
experience with the
taste if the products consumed
retailer
No negative evidence of the stores’ financial performance; licenses were not
revoked; number of customers stayed the same Retailer’s normal
functioning
No observable change in other customers’ behavior; people are buying meat
products like before the scandal Normal behavior of
other customers
The scandal happened eighteen months ago; the scandal happened some
time ago; time passed PASSAGE OF TIME

Trust in the food regulator in the UK; the retailers need to comply; rules and INSTITUTIONAL
business regulation; in the UK retailers can be sanctioned CONTEXT
Acknowledging the failure; explanations; apologies IMMEDIATE TRUST
REPAIR STRATEGIES
Launching an investigation; cooperation with the public
IMPROVED
New product traceability procedures; new quality-ensuring procedures; Improved
more robust quality control; modern and more comprehensive product- ORGANIZATIONAL
monitoring process SYSTEM
testing
COMPONENTS
Modified supply chain; terminated contracts with implicated suppliers; Modified supply
using local farmers; sourcing locally chain
IMPROVED
ORGANIZATIONAL
Being aware of what retailers are selling; retailers do not sell contaminated
COMPETENCY
products; retailers are in control; retailer knows what is in the products

Fig. 1. The data structure.

4. Findings
The data structure (Fig. 1) shows how we progressed from first-
order analysis (i.e. informant-centric terms and codes) to the more
abstract second-order concepts that form our grounded theory. Each
first-order code represents numerous data instances from different in-
terviews. In addition, the data structure is not a theory but a device that
shows the progressive development of the concepts (which are the
building blocks of grounded theory). Fig. 2 integrates our developed
concepts into a model that represents our theory of customers’ trust
recovery, grounded in the data. In the following section, we discuss
identified concepts, “zooming in” on factors and conditions, which we
found instrumental in trust recovery.
4.1. Factors and conditions instrumental in trust recovery
Our data analysis shows that customers assigned great significance
to particular observations and their personal experiences. These

Immediate
Passage of time trust repair
Customers’ strategies
observations/
experiences

Absence of further
transgressions

Positive personal
experience with the Improved
Organizational
retailer organizational system Re-built trust
competency
components
Retailer’s normal
functioning

Normal behavior of
other customers
Institutional
context

Fig. 2. The grounded theory model of customer trust recovery in an organization.

444
B. Božič, et al.
included an absence of further transgressions, positive personal ex-
perience with the retailer, the retailer’s normal functioning and the
observed normal behavior of other customers. The following quotes
presented here exemplify customers’ references to these observations
and events. For example, customer 26 stressed the importance of the
fact that “there were no new scandals involving Tesco and Asda”. Customer
13 said, “I have experienced, and I have survived all the beef products I
bought from them […] I saw that this looks like beef and that this is fine […]
and I have gone there, and I have seen that everything is fine”. Similarly,
customer 4 noted that “all was good with all the products bought from
Tesco”. Customer 24 said that he was using their minced meat and “it
has a good taste”. Customers also highlighted that “the company is still in
business” (customer 24), the retailers “still operate” (customer 3), “they
are still open” (customer 9) and “these retailers have just as many custo-
mers as before the crisis” (customer 24). Finally, customers talked about
the behavior of other customers: “I don’t think I saw any people no longer
going to Tesco or that their sales had hugely declined (sic)” (customer 2).
Other customers remarked, “You see that people are buying the products
like before the scandal” (customer 27) and that “people are buying beef
products” (customer 45).
In addition to the specific observations and personal experiences,
we also identified numerous data instances that we labeled as ‘passage
of time’, ‘immediate trust repair strategies’ and ‘institutional context’.
The passage of time refers to data instances where customers made
reference to the length of time that had lapsed since the scandal first
came to light. For example, customer 2 noted that “the scandal happened
eighteen months ago”. Customer 41 also noted that “the horsemeat scandal
happened one and a half years ago”. Some customers said that “the
scandal took place some time ago” (customer 44) or that “time has passed”
since the scandal (customer 31).
Immediate trust repair strategies represent retailers’ actions and
responses immediately after the scandal first came to light, aimed at
repairing customers’ trust. We identified the following strategies: ac-
knowledgement of the failure, explanations of what is happening,
apologies, announcement of an investigation, and retailers’ cooperation
with public inquiries. For example, customer 13 said, “When the scandal
happened, they were sharing information about what is happening (sic).
They were on the TV and across the news.” Customer 5 said that the
retailers “apologized in newspapers and on the TV”. Customer 11 similarly
observed that the retailers “said that they have a problem and that they
will do whatever it takes to solve it […] Tesco apologized”. Retailers were
“investigating the root of the problem” (customer 41), “announced the in-
vestigation” (customer 34) and “were trying to find out what went wrong”
(customer 17).
We also identified data instances where customers referred to the
broader context within which the trust violation took place. We labeled
this ‘the institutional context’. Specifically, customers assigned im-
portance to the fact that the scandal occurred in the UK, as it has a well-
established legal framework and institutions such as the food autho-
rities and NGOs that monitor what organizations are doing, low cor-
ruption rates and independent media. For example, customer 48
stressed the importance of the fact that “the horsemeat scandal took place
here in the UK”, because he believed that “the UK media is independent
and there are governmental agencies which regulate and control the re-
tailers”. Similarly, customer 32 contrasted the UK’s institutional context
with that of other countries and noted that in some there “is high cor-
ruption and well-connected businesses do not necessarily comply with the
rules”. In the UK the regulator has the “ability to withdraw the licenses if
the retailers do not comply with the rules” (customer 12).
Our grounded theory model (Fig. 2) demonstrates that the identified
observations and personal experiences relate to the passage of time,
immediate trust repair strategies, and institutional context. Customers
interpret their experiences and observations as a sign of improved or-
ganizational system components if/when enough time has passed, if/
when immediate trust repair strategies are observed, and if the incident
happens within a specific institutional context.
445
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
The experiences and observations that emerge from our data refer to
organizational system components, including organizational policies,
control and monitoring procedures, and oversight of suppliers. The
following quotes are indicative of data we labeled as organizational
system components. For example, customer 2 noted that “they now have
a very high level of internal control, quality control”. Similarly, customer
26 said that the retailers “are now controlling the meat more than before”.
Customer 42 highlighted the fact that “Tesco’s supply chain has changed.
I’m not sure how much but I am sure they have much more oversight [of] it
than before the whole mislabeling issue.”
The passage of time acted as a condition that helped customers
become more certain that their observations and personal experiences
were evidence of improvement of the retailers’ organizational system
components. For example, customer 7 noted, “with time you can become
more certain”, and, as customer 11 highlighted, “only time can tell”.
Similarly, customer 11 explained, “as time goes by” and the scandal does
not reoccur, “you can be more certain that things are fine. But if there are
no new scandals two or three weeks after the scandal, you still can’t be sure.”
Customer 17 noted that there were “no new scandals and time has
passed”. Immediate trust repair strategies acted as a reassurance me-
chanism that the identified observations and personal experiences
really were indicative of actual improvement in organizational system
components, because they demonstrated to customers that the retailers
did intend to change. For example, customer 14 remarked: “You know
that they have changed because they said they will and there was no other
scandal since then (sic).” The institutional context influenced customers’
interpretation of their observations and personal experiences, because it
provided transparency and the possibility of organizational sanctioning.
For example, customer 23 noted, “you know that the UK media is in-
dependent, competent […]” whereas in some other countries “[…] they are
not independent and can be corrupt,” and customer 45 believed that if the
media or the food regulator identified any new problem, “they will in-
form the public”.
We selected the following quotes that exemplify interpretation of
the identified observations and personal experiences (i.e. absence of
further transgressions, positive personal experience with the retailer,
the retailer’s normal functioning and the observed normal behavior of
other customers), under the three conditions discussed above, as in-
dicating the retailers’ improved system components. For example,
customer 5 said, “I am sure that they improved how they monitor the
products and their suppliers because I remember that they said they will, and
time has passed since then and there was no new scandal (sic).” Later, the
same customer remarked, “Well, you can be sure that they changed be-
cause in the UK things are regulated and monitored.” Customer 27 said that
“since the scandal everything seemed OK. I bought meat products, and all
was fine. So, I guess they improved how they do business.” Customer 25
explained that these “retailers were still operating” and that this means
that “they must have changed their ways of doing business” as “time has
passed, and I remember that they said they will (sic) solve the problem.”
Finally, observing other customers shopping at the retailers indicated to
customers that the “organizations’ business practices had improved”
(customer 44); customer 2 said, “I don’t think I saw any people no longer
going to Tesco or that their sales had hugely declined since the scandal. I
don’t recall it, so that is reasonable news to me that they had improved their
business practice.”
4.2. Organizational competency
In addition to the customers’ observations and experiences that
under identified conditions were interpreted as a sign of improved or-
ganizational components, for trust recovery to occur, customers’ per-
ceptions of the retailers’ competency or ability were also important for
trust recovery. Organizational competency includes various skills,
abilities and characteristics that enable the organization to perform a
specific activity correctly. In this study, competence refers to the re-
tailers’ ability to be able to sell uncontaminated, safe products.
B. Božič, et al.
Fig. 2 shows how organizational competency is associated with
improved organizational system components. Specifically, customers’
perceptions of organizational competency resulted from their under-
standing that organizational system components had improved. To il-
lustrate, customer 26 explained that now the retailers are able to sell
uncontaminated meat “because they have more controls”. Customer 13
believed that “retailers are now in control” because he felt that “the
problem with retailers’ supply chains has been solved.” Customer 21 noted
that they are selling “beef now; they control suppliers much more now”.
Competency is an immediate antecedent of customers’ trust. For
example, customer 19 noted that the retailers are now selling un-
contaminated meat and this is the reason “why I can trust them again”,
and customer 11 noted, “I trust them” for the same reason. The link
between competency and trust is well established in trust literature (see
Mayer et al., 1995).
5. Discussion
This study makes the following contributions. First, we have iden-
tified four factors (absence of further transgressions, positive personal
experience with the retailer, the retailer’s normal functioning, and the
normal behavior of other customers) and three contextual conditions
(passage of time, institutional context, and immediate trust repair
strategies) associated with trust recovery. This classification adds to the
factors codified in the literature on the topic, summarized in Table 1,
which included various verbal and substantive actions, such as apolo-
gies, explanations, promises, policy changes, penance, etc. To our
knowledge, no prior study has discussed the factors identified in this
study.
Second, our findings show that trust recovery is not necessarily a
direct result of a trustee’s trust repair activities, as theorized in the
literature. Our findings show that the four factors we identified were
not directly associated with the trustee’s deliberate trust repair activ-
ities. Prior studies showed that trust recovery depends on two types of
trust repair strategies: immediate trust repair strategies, involving
various verbal actions (e.g. apology, promise, explanations) and, im-
portantly, a trustee’s trust repair strategies that are associated with
interventions to faulty organizational system components. Instead, we
found that customers’ trust recovery depends on their various ob-
servations and personal experiences not directly associated with orga-
nizational trust repair activities. Thus, we found that, under specific
contextual conditions, involving the passage of time, evidence of some
immediate trust repair strategies, and the institutional context within
which the scandal took place, customers’ observations and personal
experiences were interpreted as signs or evidence of improved organi-
zational system components. Also, in contrast to prior research that
conceptualized or found immediate trust repair responses as ante-
cedents of trust recovery (e.g. Bachmann et al., 2015; Kramer &
Lewicki, 2010; Xie & Peng, 2009), we found that these activities played
a more supportive role. They represented only one out of three iden-
tified conditions for trust recovery.
These findings have important theoretical implications. They high-
light the significance of looking beyond narrow explanations of trust
recovery. In the past, few researchers (e.g. Siebert, Martin, Božič, &
Docherty, 2015) suggested the value of ‘looking beyond the factory
gates’ in the context of intra-organizational trust relationships. They
argued that while agentic explanations of trust (i.e. trust recovery via
trustee’s activities) are valuable for understanding trust dynamics, re-
searchers also need to consider the organizational, political, and social
environment to fully understand trust recovery. This thesis is consistent
with related research into how social disapproval of firms occurs in the
social media era, which shows that firms are more open to emotional
responses from varied constituents (Wang et al., forthcoming). We add
empirical evidence to reinforce this point on how context influences
process – what is going on in the external environment matters hugely
for trust relations between organizations and customers. Relatedly, we
446
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
accentuate the point that trust recovery, instead of trust repair (as the
literature often designates it), might be a more appropriate term, as it
captures non-agentive explanations beyond the transgressor’s im-
mediate trust repair interventions, including the role of context con-
ditions at play following trust breaches.
5.1. Managerial implications
Our findings show that after trust violation, managers need to im-
plement trust repair strategies. However, they also suggest that beyond
early stage actions, customers draw on their experiences not directly
associated with trust repair interventions to infer changes in internal
organizational system components. This means that managers do not
necessarily need to communicate actual improvements to the organi-
zational system, as customers will eventually infer such changes from
their observations and experience outside the organization. This point
is important, as it can help companies direct scarce resources and time
to more fruitful pursuits. However, our findings also point out that
rebuilding trust can take time, and that it is not necessarily fully de-
pendent on managerial actions, as previously assumed.
5.2. Limitations and future research
This research should be interpreted with consideration of its lim-
itations. It is a retrospective study, which may be the only viable way to
study trust recovery, due to the difficulty of predicting trust failures and
obtaining access to ‘live’ trust repair (Gillespie et al., 2014; Weick,
1990). We used interviews to collect data about participants’ recent
experiences involving their trust in selected food retailers. The problem
with this approach is that memory is fallible, and collected data may
include “historical reconstruction” under the influence of subsequent
experiences (Blaikie, 2009). To address this concern, we collected data
eighteen months after the scandal first came to light, and participants
remembered the scandal well (corroborated by newspaper articles and
other published information about the scandal). Also, we used the
principles of cognitive interviewing (Geiselman et al., 1984), a tech-
nique developed to ensure more accurate recollections of past experi-
ences. In our view, although this study does not have statistical gen-
eralizability, as is characteristic of inductive qualitative research, it can
be used for “naturalistic generalization” (Stake, 1978). We should also
point out that because trust is a context-specific phenomenon (Lewicki
& Bunker, 1996; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998; Sheppard &
Sherman, 1998), the findings of this study are context-dependent, and
the identified factors and associated conditions might vary in different
contexts (e.g. different types of trust violations, different types of trust
relationships, different trustors’ backgrounds (in terms of education
and/or socio-economic status), and direct/indirect locus of trustees’
responsibility for the violation).
Our findings have several interesting implications that deserve
further investigation. First, participants in this study made decisions
about trust with regard to a violation that occurred eighteen months
previously. Our analysis points out that this time period was an im-
portant condition for customers to interpret their observations and
experiences as indicating improved organizational components. A per-
tinent question is whether customers draw on different types of ob-
servations and experiences, or if they draw on them at all, when little
time has passed since the scandal first came to light. Future research
could shed more light on the role of time in trust recovery, which has
only recently gained importance in trust repair research (see Bachmann
et al., 2015). Second, our study investigates trust repair after a com-
petency-based trust violation between customers and food retailers,
involving contaminated food. More research is needed to investigate
the applicability of the customers’ observations and experiences iden-
tified in this study to different contexts (for example, those indicated
above).
Finally, we agree with Lewicki (see Gillespie, 2017, for details) and
B. Božič, et al.
highlight the importance of adopting more field approaches and dif-
ferent perspectives (see Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Willmott, 1993) when
studying trust repair. We consider this an especially promising way of
advancing research, as different ways of seeing, approaching, and re-
searching a phenomenon (e.g. from different research paradigms) can
produce interesting research (Davis, 1971) and new discoveries (Gioia
& Pitre, 1990; Locke, 2011). We hope that this study will provide some
encouragement to do so.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to give particular thanks to K. Sivakumar, Associate
Editor of Journal of Business Research, for his encouragement, gui-
dance and suggestions during the whole refereeing process. We would
similarly like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable
feedback.
References
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). When push doesn't come to
shove: Interpersonal forgiveness in workplace relationships. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 12(3), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492603256337.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and
institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36(9),
1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615599334.
Bansal, G., & Zahedi, F. M. (2015). Trust violation and repair: The information privacy
perspective. Decision Support Systems, 71(3), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.
2015.01.009.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive ad-
vantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/
smj.4250150912.
BBC. Horsemeat scandal: Good news for butchers? (2013). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
uk-21449140/ Accessed 24 April 2015.
Blaikie, N. (2009). Designing social research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, J. A., Buchholtz, A. K., & Dunn, P. (2016). Moral salience and the role of goodwill
in firm-stakeholder trust repair. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 181–199. https://doi.
org/10.1017/beq.2016.27.
Brühl, R., Basel, J. S., & Kury, M. F. (2018). Communication after an integrity-based trust
violation: How organizational account giving affects trust. European Management
Journal, 36(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.08.001.
Bunkley, N. In Detroit, Toyota vows to earn trust. (2011). http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/01/11/business/11toyota.html?_r=0/ Accessed 24 May 2017.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, Vol.
248. London: Heinemann.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative re-
search. London: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.
Chen, Y. H., Wu, J. J., & Chang, H. T. (2013). Examining the mediating effect of positive
moods on trust repair in e-commerce. Internet Research, 23(3), 355–371. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10662241311331772.
Cui, Y., Zhang, X., Peng, X., & Chu, J. (2018). How to use apology and compensation to
repair competence-versus integrity-based trust violations in e-commerce. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 32, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.
2018.11.001.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.). Trust: Making and
Breaking Co-operative Relations (pp. 49–72). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a
sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(4), 309–344. https://
doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211.
Debab, N., & Yateem, H. A. (2012). Assessing the factors that influence trust in the
Bahraini retail banking after the financial crisis. International Journal of Business
Management & Economic Research, 3(3), 546–565. https://doi:10.3846/16111699.
2017.1345784.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200401.
Dietz, G., & Gillespie, N. (2012). Recovery of trust: Case studies of organizational failures and
trust repair. London: Institute of Business Ethics.
Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion
on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736–748. https://doi.org/
447
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. The
Journal of Marketing, 51(April), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298705100202.
Eberl, P., Geiger, D., & Aßländer, M. S. (2015). Repairing trust in an organization after
integrity violations: The ambivalence of organizational rule adjustments. Organization
Studies, 36(9), 1205–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615585335.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting
police interviews: Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jur-
isprudence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5), 321–328. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.004.
Fox, A. (1966). Research papers 3: Industrial sociology and industrial relations. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic planning: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friend, L. A., Costley, C. L., & Brown, C. (2010). Spirals of distrust vs spirals of trust in
retail customer service: Customers as victims or allies. Journal of Services Marketing,
24(6), 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011072573.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust across
multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327.
Fuoli, M., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (2017). Denial outperforms apology in repairing
organizational trust despite strong evidence of guilt. Public Relations Review, 43(4),
645–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.07.007.
Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking co-operative relations. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, A., Avetissian, I., &
Prosk, A. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the
cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12(1), 74–80.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy
of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.
35713319.
Gillespie, N., Hurley, R., Dietz, G., & Bachmann, R. (2012). Restoring institutional trust
after the global financial crisis: A systemic approach. In R. M. Kramer, & T. L.
Pittinsky (Eds.). Restoring trust in organizations and leaders: Enduring challenges and
emerging answers (pp. 185–216). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., & Lockey, S. (2014). Organizational reintegration and trust repair
after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 371–410.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq2014437.
Gillespie, N. (2017). Trust dynamics and repair: An interview with Roy Lewicki. Journal of
Trust Research, 7(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1373022.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy
of Management Review, 15(4), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310758.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitaitve
inquiry. Chicago: Aldine Press.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings.
New York: Free Press.
Guo, R., Zhang, W., Wang, T., Li, C. B., & Tao, L. (2018). Timely or considered? Brand
trust repair strategies and mechanism after greenwashing in China—from a legiti-
macy perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 72(July), 127–137. https://10.
1016/j.indmarman.2018.04.001.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Harris Interactive. FSA – Customer attitudes to towards the horse meat contamination
issue. (2013a). https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/multimedia/pdfs/horse-
meat Customera.pdf/ Accessed 12 February 2014.
Harris Interactive. FSA – horse meat wave 2 changing customer attitudes following the
horse meat contamination issue. (2013b). https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/
files/multimedia/pdfs/horsemeat-attitudesb.pdf/ Accessed 12 February 2014.
Huff, L. C. (2005). Stages in the development of customers’ trust for service providers. In
Y. U. Ha, & Y. Yi (Vol. Eds.), AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Customer Research: Vol. 6,
(pp. 105–110). Duluth, MN: Association for Customer Research.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of
suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus in-
tegrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.398221.
Knight, J. G., Mather, D., & Mathieson, B. (2015). The key role of sincerity in restoring
trust in a brand with a corporate apology. In J. L. Robinson (Ed.). Marketing dynamism
& sustainability: Things change, things stay the same… Proceedings of the 2012 Academy
of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 192–195). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to
reducing organizational trust deficits. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 245–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.487403.
Kramer, R. M., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2012). Restoring trust in organizations and leaders:
Enduring challenges and emerging answers. New York: Oxford University Press.
La, S., & Choi, B. (2012). The role of customer affection and trust in loyalty rebuilding
after service failure and recovery. The Service Industries Journal, 32(1), 105–125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.529438.
Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.
In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
research (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Liao, Q., Luo, X., & Gurung, A. (2009). Rebuilding post-violation trust in B2C electronic
B. Božič, et al.
commerce. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 21(1), 60–74. https://
doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2009010103.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage Publications.
Locke, K. (2011). Field research practice in management and organization studies:
Reclaiming its tradition of discovery. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 613–652.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.593319.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power: Two works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: Wiley.
Lyon, F., Möllering, G., & Saunders, M. N. (2015). Handbook of research methods on trust.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mattila, A. S. (2009). How to handle PR disasters? An examination of the impact of
communication response type and failure attributions on Customer perceptions.
Journal of Services Marketing, 23(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08876040910965548.
Mayer, R. C. (2014, November). Trust. Keynote address at the 8th FINT/EIASM Workshop
on trust within and between organizations, Coventry, UK.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organi-
zational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.1995.9508080335.
Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1991). The cognitive interview: Its origins, empirical support,
evaluation and practical implications. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 1(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450010405.
Meyer, S. B., Coveney, J., Henderson, J., Ward, P. R., & Taylor, A. W. (2012).
Reconnecting australian customers and producers: Identifying problems of distrust.
Food Policy, 37(6), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.005.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and
users of market research: The Dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224379202900303.
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market
research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299305700106.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224299405800302.
Morse, J. (2001). Situating grounded theory within qualitative inquiry. In R. S. Schreiber,
& P. N. Stern (Eds.). Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 1–15). New York: Springer.
Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, routine, reflexivity. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing.
Nakayachi, K., & Watabe, M. (2005). Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The
signaling effects of voluntary “Hostage Posting” on trust. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.
001.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2012). Context and action in the transformation of the firm: A reprise.
Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1304–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2012.01054.x.
Richards, C., Lawrence, G., & Burch, D. (2011). Supermarkets and agro-industrial foods.
Food, Culture & Society, 14(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.2752/
175174411X12810842291146.
Roberts, M. T. (2011). A perspective on emerging law, Customer trust and social re-
sponsibility in China's food sector: The “bleaching” case study. Food and Drug Law
Journal, 66(3), 405–415.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organi-
zational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2),
344–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24348410.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422–437. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.1998.926619.
Siebert, S., Martin, G., Božič, B., & Docherty, I. (2015). Looking ‘beyond the factory gates’:
Towards more pluralist and radical approaches to intraorganizational trust research.
Organization Studies, 36(8), 1033–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/
448
Journal of Business Research 109 (2020) 440–448
0170840615580010.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Customer trust, value, and loyalty in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.66.1.15.18449.
Spicer, A., & Okhmatovskiy, I. (2015). Multiple paths to institutional-based trust pro-
duction and repair: Lessons from the russian bank deposit market. Organization
Studies, 36(9), 1143–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615585334.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2),
5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007002005.
The Telegraph. Horse meat scandal: Supermarkets battle to regain trust. (2013a). http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9875236/Horse-
meat-scandal-Supermarkets-battle-to-regain-trust.html/ Accessed 06 March 2014.
The Telegraph. Tesco pledges to open up supply chain after horse meat scandal. (2013b).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9874854/
Tescopledges- to-open-up-supply-chain-after-horse-meat-scandal.html/ Accessed 06
March 2014.
Utz, S., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2009). On-line reputation systems: The effects of
feedback comments and reactions on building and rebuilding trust in on-line auc-
tions. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(3), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.
2753/JEC1086-4415130304.
van Laer, T., & de Ruyter, K. (2010). In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide
cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.
2009.12.010.
Wang, X., Reger, R.K., & Pfarrer, M.D. (forthcoming). Faster, hotter and more linked in:
Managing social disapproval in the social media era. Academy of Management
Review, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
2017.0375.
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the tenerife air disaster.
Journal of Management, 16(3), 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920639001600304.
Willmott, H. (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14(5),
681–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400504.
Wu, J. J., Chien, S. H., Chen, Y. H., & Wu, W. K. (2013). Multichannel trust transfer and
repair. PACIS 2013 Proceedings, 129–143.
Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles
of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology and Marketing,
26(7), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20289.
Yu, S. H., Wu, J. J., & Lin, W. R. (2017). Trust transfer and repair: A multichannel study
on the smartphone industry. International Journal of Organizational Innovation
(Online), 9(4), 133–156.
Zhang, Z. (2012). The study on customer trust repair based on the interaction of person &
environment. Procedia Engineering, 29, 1467–1470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2012.01.156.
Branko Božič is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the NEOMA Business School, France.
He researches in the areas of trust and business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-gov-
ernment (B2G) selling/buying. Branko’s work is conceptual or empirical, involving in-
ductive research approaches such as grounded theory and case study methods. He has
published in various journals, including Organization Studies, European Management
Journal, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, and Human Resource Management
Journal.
Sabina Siebert is Professor of Management at the Adam Smith Business School,
University of Glasgow, UK. She researches in the areas of organizational trust, the so-
ciology of professions and management in the creative industries. She employs a range of
qualitative methodologies, including discourse analysis, narrative analysis and organi-
zational ethnography. Sabina has published in various journals, such as Academy of
Management Journal, Organization Studies, Sociology, and Work, Employment and Society.
She was the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editor of the European Management Journal (2013-
2017).
Graeme Martin is Chair of Management and Director of Research at the University of
Dundee School of Business. He has published eight sole or co-authored and edited books,
numerous book chapters and articles in international journals in management, organi-
zational change and HRM.
 UNIVERSITAS NEGERI YOGYAKARTA

ANALISIS DATA PENELITIAN GROUNDED THEORY

Oleh:
Delyanti A. Pulungan (19701261013)

PROGRAM STUDI PENELITIAN DAN EVALUASI PENDIDIKAN

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI YOGYAKARTA
2020

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 1.1. Definisi Fenomenologi

1.2. Karakteristik Utama Fenomenologi

1.3. Jenis Fenomenologi

1.4. Prosedur Pelaksanaan Penelitian Fenomenologi

1.5. Analisis dan Representasi Fenomenologi

1.6. Contoh Studi Fenomenologi

1.7. Tantangan dalam Fenomenologi

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Diperkenalkan oleh Barney G. Glaser dan Anselm L. Strauss, dengan
diterbitkannya buku: “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967),
sebagai hasil kolaborasi di Universitas California, Barkeley (1965-1967)

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Grounded Theory
Metodologi penemuan
Metode penelitian yang
Pendekatan dalam teori secara induktif yang
menjelaskan petunjuk-
kualitatif yang berupaya memperkenankan peneliti
petunjuk sistematik untuk
membangun sebuah teori untuk mengembangkan
pengumpulan dan analisis
yang bersumber dari data laporan teori ciri-ciri
data dengan tujuan
empiris yang umum suatu topik secara
membangun kerangka
dikumpulkan dan serentakdi lapangan dari
yang dapat menjelaskan
dianalisis secara catatan pemerhatian
data yang terkumpul
sistematis empirik sebuah data
(Charmaz, 2000)
(Glaser dan Staruss, 1967 (Martin & Turner, 1986)

Membangun teori / model teoritis yang padat dan variatif

berdasarkan data empiris (fenomena)

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Khas Dasar Grounded Theory
1. Ada fenomena sosial sebagai realita yang harus diberi makna
2. Makna itu baru bisa dipahami ketika dilakukan pengamatan
langsung dan mendalam yang kemudian menjadi dasar
metodologi
3. dilakukan secara induktif melalui pengumpulan data lapangan
yang berakhir dengan konsepsi atau teori yang tersusun secara
sistematis.
4. Berfokus untuk “menemukan” teori melalui kontak dengan
dunia sosial dan “menolak” teoritisasi konsep yang ada.

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Karakteristik Utama Grounded Theory
1. Ada fenomena sosial sebagai realita yang harus diberi makna
> Study of Phenomenon
2. Makna itu baru bisa dipahami ketika dilakukan pengamatan
langsung dan mendalam yang kemudian menjadi dasar
metodologi > Discovery dan Developed
3. dilakukan secara induktif melalui pengumpulan data lapangan
secara sistematis. > systematic data collection
4. Berakhir dengan konsepsi atau teori yang tersusun secara
sistematis. Berfokus untuk “menemukan” teori melalui kontak
dengan dunia sosial dan “menolak” teoritisasi konsep yang
ada. > Phenomenon Analysis

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Kriteria dalam Mengkonstruksi Teori pada Grounded Theory

1. Fit (Cocok) : Teori yang dihasikan cocok dengan kenyataan sehari-hari sesuai
bidang yang diteliti.

2. Understanding (dapat dipahami): Teori yang dihasilkan menggambarkan

realitas (kenyataan) dan bersifat komprehensif, sehingga dapat dipahami oleh
individu-individu yang diteliti maupun oleh peneliti.

3. Generality (dapat berlaku umum): Teori yang dihasilkan bervariasi sehingga

dapat diterapkan pada fenomena dalam konteks yang bermacam-macam.

4. Control (dapat melakukan pengawasan): Teori mengandung hipotesis-hipotesis

yang dapat digunakan dalam kegiatan membimbing secara sistematik untuk
mengambil data aktual yang hanya berhubungan dengan fenomena terkait

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Desain Penelitian Grounded Theory
2 Desain Popular pada Grounded Theory:
1. Systematic procedures of Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin (Strauss & Corbin,
1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015)
• Bentuk yang lebih preskriptif, dengan kategori-kategori yang telah ditentukan
dan penekanan pada validitas dan reliabilitas data.

• Desain sistematik ini menekankan penggunaan tiga fase analisis data yang
dimulai dengan pengodean terbuka (open coding), pengodean poros (axial
coding), dan pengodean selektif (selective coding) dan pengembangan suatu
paradigma logis atau gambaran visual dari teori yang diturunkan (Creswell,
2008: 433).

• Konsep penting dari pendekatan ini, adalah melibatkan kategori, kode, dan
pengkodean dan prosedur sistematis dipandu oleh perbandingan konstan data
dari lapangan dengan kategori yang muncul.

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Desain Penelitian Grounded Theory

2. Constructivist approach of Charmaz (2005, 2006, 2014)

• Pengembangan teori yang dihasilkan dari proses konstruksi yang bergantung

pada interaksi peneliti dengan partisipan dan lapangan.

• Desain ini dilakukan dengan cara menjelaskan perasaan-perasaan masing-

masing partisipan sewaktu mereka menjalani sebuah fenomena.

• Laporan penelitian ditulis terutama dalam bentuk penjelasan yang logis serta,
secara mendalam, mengupas asumsi-asumsi dan makna yang diungkapkan
masing-masing partisipan yang diteliti

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Prosedur Pelaksanaan Grounded Theory

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Analisis Data Grounded Theory

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Fase Analisis Data (Coding) pada Grounded Theory

1. Pengodean terbuka (open coding) :

Segmentasi kategori > sub-kategori > mencari data untuk membuat dimensi

2. Pengodean poros (axial coding):

• Membuat paradigm pengkodean
• Identifikasi fenomena central
• Eksplorasi

3. Pengodean selektif (selective coding):

Melakukan seleksi untuk menghasilkan alternative berupa proposisi atau hipotesis
yang dapat menspeksifikasi prediksi hubungan keadaan

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Coding pada Grounded Theory

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

6. Contoh Studi Fenomenologi

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Overview of the Study

• studi ini berfokus pada representasi kognitif yang dipegang oleh

pasien AIDS tentang penyakit mereka.
• Para penulis (authors) mengajukan Model Self-Regulation of Illness
Representation yang menyatakan bahwa pasien adalah pemecah
masalah yang aktif yang perilakunya merupakan produk dari
respons kognitif dan emosional mereka terhadap AIDS.
• Studi tersebut mendeskripsikan bagaimana pasien
merepresentasikan AIDS dalam gambaran yang belum pernah
dipelajari.

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Overview of the StudyOverview of methodology: Data collection

• Pengumpulan data penelitian ini dengan melalui wawancara selama lebih dari 18
bulan dengan 58 pria dan wanita dengan diagnosis AIDS.
• Pertanyaan wawancara mencerminkan kerangka fenomenologis ;
- Apa pengalaman Anda dengan AIDS?
- Apakah Anda memiliki gambaran mental tentang HIV / AIDS?
- Perasaan apa yang muncul di benak Anda?
- Apa artinya memilikinya dalam hidup Anda?

• Para peserta juga diminta menggambar penyakitnya

- Hanya delapan peserta yang menggambarkan penyakitnya
- Penulis mengintegrasikan gambar-gambar ini ke dalam analisis data mereka

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Overview of methodology: Data Analysis
Collaizi (1978)
• Transkripnya dibaca beberapa kali 1. Frase/kalimat penting
2. Makna dan
• Frase atau kalimat penting diidentifikasi pengelompokkan
kedalam tema
• Makna dikelompokkan ke dalam tema (175 pernyataan penting 3. Deskripsi

dan 11 tema utama)

• Hasilnya diintegrasikan ke dalam deskripsi fenomena yang
lengkap dan mendalam
• Temuan divalidasi menggunakan pengecekan anggota dan
komentar mereka dimasukkan ke dalam deskripsi akhir.
• Studi ini diakhiri dengan esensi (deskripsi lengkap tentang
pengalaman pasien dan strategi koping)

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Sample transkrip

Bayangan saya tentang virus tersebut adalah penghancuran total. Virus ini bahkan seperti telah
membunuh saya, karena virus ini telah merampas hampir segalanya dari kehidupan saya. Hal ini
sama buruknya dengan pemasungan. Anda mendapati segalanya dirampas dari Anda. Satu-satunya
yang bisa dilakukan adalah menunggu kematian. Saya takut dan merasa gila. Saya hampir-hampir
tidak peduli lagi dengan diri saya. Saya mulai berpikir tentang penyakit ini, dan mulai bertanya-tanya
apakah pengobatan ini ada gunanya bagi saya.

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Collaizi (1978)
1. Frase/kalimat
penting
2. …..
3. ……………

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Collaizi (1978)
1. …..
2. Makna dan
pengelompokkan
kedalam tema
3. ……..

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

 Collaizi (1978)
1. …………….
2. …………
3. Deskripsi

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Features of a phenomenological study

 Studi ini menggunakan prosedur analisis data yang sistematis mulai dari pernyataan penting,
makna dan tema, dan esensi
 Studi ini juga mencakup tabel yang menggambarkan pernyataan, makna, dan kelompok tema
yang signifikan.
 Studi ini memasukkan fenomena sentral yang sesuai untuk fenomenologi.
 Studi ini melibatkan pengumpulan data yang ketat dengan 58 peserta Kajian diakhiri dengan
mendeskripsikan esensi dari pengalaman.

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Pengalaman
mencoba
melakukan studi
(masih belajar )

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

7. Tantangan dalam Fenomenologi

• Memahami asumsi filosofis yang luas dari fenomenologi

• Memilih individu untuk studi yang semuanya pernah mengalami fenomena
sehingga pemahaman bersama dapat dipadukan
• Mengelompokkan pengalaman pribadi
• Peneliti harus memutuskan bagaimana pengalaman pribadi mereka akan
dimasukkan ke dalam penelitian

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id

Taqwa, Mandiri, Cendekia uny.ac.id