CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60

Grounded theory method, part I: within the five moments of qualitative research

Annells, Merilyn·1997·Nursing Inquiry
DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1800.1997.tb00085.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While discussing how the grounded theory mediod has been situated during the five moments of qualitative research history, a detailed analysis is offered of die differences between the classic mode of die mediod and Strauss and Corbin's reformulation of the mediod. Such differences include: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, intended product, dieoretical underpinnings, procedural steps and claims of rigour. Reasons for Strauss. and Corbin's elaboration of the mediod are suggested, widiin an historical context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-1800.1997.tb00085.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Numerous scholars interpret SGT as moving toward constructivism in the first two texts.

    “Numerous scholars interpret SGT as moving toward constructivism in the first two texts (Annells, 1997; Lomborg & Kirkevold, 2003; McCann & Clark, 2003a; Mills et al., 2006).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Annells, 1997

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Annells, M.
Venue
Nursing Inquiry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-06
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
120-129
ISSN
  • 1320-7881
  • 1440-1800
DOI
10.1111/j.1440-1800.1997.tb00085.x
Cited by
60
References
3
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 3714 d)

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