The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Field Research Practice in Management and Organization Studies: Reclaiming its Tradition of Discovery
Abstract
This review reasserts field research's discovery epistemology. While it occupies a minority position in the study of organization and management, discovery-oriented research practice has a long tradition of giving insight into new, unappreciated and misappreciated processes that are important to how work is accomplished. I argue that while methods discourse has long emphasized that particularizing data and an emergent research design are productive for discovery, little to no attention has been paid to the conjectural processes necessary to imaginatively interpret these observations. I underscore them. What is the future for discovery work in business schools today? Issues arise when an increasing interest in discovery-oriented research is expressed in an institutional context that is bounded off from field research's home disciplines and is dominated by a validation epistemology. In light of this current context, I offer some initial thoughts on the work to be done to maintain fieldwork's discovery tradition in management and organization studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781848607941 · Cited by 2,798
What is Wrong with Social Theory?
Blumer, H. (1954) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2088165 · Cited by 2,535
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies
Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, L. (2008) · doi:10.4135/9781483385686 · Cited by 1,637
Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers
Jackall, R. (1988) · International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society · doi:10.1007/bf01390690 · Cited by 1,296
Cited by
The Sociomateriality of Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38:3.3 · Cited by 359
Metadata
- Authors
- Locke, K.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 613-652
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4251723678
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 12.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Field Research Practice in Management and Organization Studies: Reclaiming its Tradition of Discovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/19416520.2011.593319
- The paper
- Locke, K. (2011). Field Research Practice in Management and Organization Studies: Reclaiming its Tradition of Discovery. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.593319
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.