The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative–Qualitative Divide*
Abstract
abstract Qualitative methods for data collection and analysis are not mystical, but they are powerful, particularly when used to build new or refine existing theories. This article provides an introduction to qualitative methods and an overview of tactics for ensuring rigor in qualitative research useful for the novice researcher, as well as more experienced researchers interested in expanding their methodological repertoire or seeking guidance on how to evaluate qualitative research. We focus our discussion on the qualitative analytical technique of grounded theory building, and suggest that organizational research has much to gain by coupling of use of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
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., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 4×
“There are many contexts where qualitative and quantitative methods can be used in conjunction to build and refine theory (Cialdini, 1980; Fine and Elsbach, 2000; Jick, 1979; Weick, 1979).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFrom the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 2×
“Its intent is to ‘elicit fresh understandings about patterned relationships between social actors and how these relationships and interactions actively construct reality (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)’ (Suddaby, 2006).”
BackgroundBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Ely, R. J. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393234 · Cited by 631
Cited by
Mutlu (2008) · doi:10.1145/1349822.1349860 · Cited by 366
Circularity Brokers: Digital Platform Organizations and Waste Recovery in Food Supply Chains
Ciulli, F., Kolk, A., & Boe-Lillegraven, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04160-5 · Cited by 310
Chowdhury, M. T., Sarkar, A., Paul, S. K., & Moktadir, M. A. (2022) · Operations Management Research · doi:10.1007/s12063-020-00166-9 · Cited by 266
Qualitative research in marketing: what can academics do better?
Crick, J. M. (2021) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2020.1743738 · Cited by 172
Pera, R., Quinton, S., & Baima, G. (2020) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21337 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1821-1835
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2086646772
- Cited by
- 796
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 72.77
- 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
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.
