Using a grounded theory approach for exploring software product management challenges
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sixteen articles provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process.
“Sixteen articles (Boxes 2.3.1, 2.3.2) provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process [2, 18, 45, 47, 49].”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [49]
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · see citing works
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · see citing works
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · see citing works
Axial Coding and the Grounded Theory Controversy
Kendall, J. (1999) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/019394599902100603 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development
Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2011) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Grounded Theory: a magical formula or a potential nightmare
Goulding, C. (2001) · The Marketing Review · doi:10.1362/1469347012569409 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines
Stol, K.-J., Ralph, P., & Fitzgerald, B. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2884781.2884833 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jantunen, S., & Gause, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (FI)
- Binghamton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jantunen, Sami
- ORCID
- Jantunen, Sami
- Venue
- Journal of Systems and Software
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 95
- Pages
- 32-51
- ISSN
- 0164-1212 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061928694
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Systems and Software (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- software product management, grounded theory, requirements engineering, positivism, theory development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
