Your decision to concentrate on a grounded theory study, phenomenological analysis seems practical given the limitations imposed by the EdD structure. In doing so, you can avoid the theoretical issues that potentially mar MMR studies (Bryman, 2009; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). My question to you today centres on the quantitative notion of generalisability, which Rapley (2014) equates with transferability of qualitative studies.
I assume that you will interview a series of business leaders and use their interview transcripts as your data for analysis. Irrespective of the techniques involved in grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) which may lead you towards a very robust interpretation of that data, unless the sample is representative enough, how will you attempt to ensure transferability of your findings? Rapley (2014) asserts that transferability is “dependent upon the degree of similarity (fittingness) between two contexts” (p. 52). Will you pass on the burden of transferability proof onto each reader, who will judge for themselves the degree of fit between your findings and their situation?
In the context of this week’s discussion (which you and I are entering into as an intellectual exercise), it may be useful to suggest that a short quantitative follow-up survey that is based on your qualitative findings may help support any claims of generalisability/transferability.
Bryman, A. (2009). Mixed methods in organizational research. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (4th ed., pp. 516–531). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rapley, T. (2014). Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Research. In U. Flick, (Ed), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 49-63). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 285–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.