Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,154

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature

Wolfswinkel, Joost F, Furtmueller, Elfi, Wilderom, Celeste P M·2013·European Journal of Information Systems
DOI 10.1057/ejis.2011.51
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper offers guidance to conducting a rigorous literature review. We present this in the form of a five-stage process in which we use Grounded Theory as a method. We first probe the guidelines explicated by Webster and Watson, and then we show the added value of Grounded Theory for rigorously analyzing a carefully chosen set of studies; it assures solidly legitimized, in-depth analyses of empirical facts and related insights. This includes, the emergence of new themes, issues and opportunities; interrelationships and dependencies in or beyond a particular area; as well as inconsistencies. If carried out meticulously, reviewing a well-carved out piece of literature by following this guide is likely to lead to more integrated and fruitful theory emergence, something that would enrich many fields in the social sciences.

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 · 10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.2307/3250961 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1080/14719037.2011.589614 · DOI
  3. Buchanan DA, 2011, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods
  4. Cooper HM, 1998, Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews
  5. Creswell JW, 2008, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research
  6. Dubin R, 1978, Theory Development
  7. Eisenhardt KM, 1989, Academy of Management Review, 14, 532, 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1108/09564231111136854 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/19416520.2010.495530 · DOI
  10. Hart C, 1998, Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination
  11. Hart C, 2000, Doing a Literature Search: A Comprehensive Guide for the Social Sciences
  12. 10.1177/2041386611401273 · DOI
  13. Kaplan A, 1964, The Conduct of Inquiry
  14. Merton RK, 1967, On Theoretical Sociology
  15. Salipante P, 1982, Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 321
  16. 10.1145/966389.966417 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/2393788 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Strauss A, 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
  19. Strauss A, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
  20. Webster J, 2002, MIS Quarterly, 26, 13
  21. 10.2307/258554 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. M.
Venue
European Journal of Information Systems
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
45-55
ISSN
  • 0960-085X (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-9344
DOI
10.1057/ejis.2011.51
OpenAlex
W2044936748
Cited by
1,154
References
3
FWCI
94.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)

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.