Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice

Baskerville, Richard, Pries-Heje, Jan·1999·Accounting, Management and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1016/s0959-8022(98)00017-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0959-8022(98)00017-4

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Agar, M. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Baskerville, 1996, Deferring generalizability: four classes of generalization in social enquiry, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 8, 5
  3. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1987). Perspectives on description tools and techniques in system development. In P. Docherty, K. Fuchs-Kittowski, P. Kolm, & L. Mathiassen, System design for human development and productivity: participation and beyond (pp. 319–330). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  4. Blum, 1955, Action research—a scientific approach?, Philosophy of Science, 22, 1, 10.1086/287381 · DOI
  5. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: J. Wiley.
  6. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: J. Wiley.
  7. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion In D. Tatar, Proceedings of the 2nd conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 140–152). New York: ACM Press. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Davenport, T., & Short, J. (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review (Summer), pp. 11–27.
  9. Ehn, 1989, The art and science of designing computer artifacts, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 21
  10. Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Finkelstein, C. (1989). Information engineering. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.
  12. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research methods in the social sciences (4th ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  13. Keen, 1981, Information systems and organization change, Communications of the ACM, 24, 24, 10.1145/358527.358543 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Klein, 1989, Legitimation in information systems development: a social change perspective, Office: Technology and People, 5, 29, 10.1108/EUM0000000003527 · DOI
  15. Lau, F. (1997). A review on the use of action research in information systems studies. In A. Lee, J. Liebenau, & J. DeGross, Information systems and qualitative research. London: Chapman & Hall. · DOI
  16. Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: A tool for managing group decision rationale. Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW 90) (pp. 79–92). New York: ACM Press.
  17. Lewin, 1947, Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations, 1, 5, 10.1177/001872674700100103 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Lyytinen, 1987, Different perspectives on information systems: problems and solutions, ACM Computing Surveys, 19, 5, 10.1145/28865.28867 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mason, R. (1991). MIS experiments: A pragmatic perspective. In I. Benbasat (Ed.), The information systems research challenge: Experimental research methods (pp. 3–20). Boston: Harvard.
  20. Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P., & Stage, J., (1991). Soft systems in software design. In M. Jackson, E. Flood, R. Blackham, G. Mansell, & S. Probert, Systems thinking in Europe (pp. 311–318). New York: Plenum. · DOI
  21. Orlikowski, 1991, Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research, 2, 1, 10.1287/isre.2.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Parnas, 1986, A rational design process: how and why to fake it, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE, 12, 251, 10.1109/TSE.1986.6312940 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Pries-Heje, J., & Malmborg, L. (1992). B4CASE: A tool for structuring and recording design rationale. In G. Bjerknes, T. Bratteteig, & K. Kautz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th IRIS—Part I: Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (August), (pp. 310–324). Oslo: Department of Informatics, University of Oslo.
  24. Rapoport, 1970, Three dilemmas of action research, Human Relations, 23, 499, 10.1177/001872677002300601 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Rein, 1991, RIBIS: a real-time group hypertext system, International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 34, 349, 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90025-3 · DOI
  26. Schein, E. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Beverly Hills: Sage. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Susman, 1978, An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582, 10.2307/2392581 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  29. Wood-Harper, T. (1985). Research methods in information systems: using action research. In E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, & T. Wood-Harper, Research methods in information systems (pp. 169–191). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  30. Yakemovic, K., Burgess, C., & Conklin, E. J. (1990). Report on a development project use of an issue-based information system. Proceedings of the 1990 conference on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) (pp. 105–118). New York: ACM Press.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J.
Venue
Accounting, Management and Information Technologies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
1-23
ISSN
0959-8022 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0959-8022(98)00017-4
OpenAlex
W2087397893
Cited by
346
References
5
FWCI
25.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.