The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alternative Approaches for Studying Organizational Change
Abstract
Scholars hold different views about whether organizations consist of things or processes and about variance or process methods for conducting research. By combining these two dimensions, we develop a typology of four approaches for studying organizational change. Although the four approaches may be viewed as opposing or competing views, we see them as being complementary. Each approach focuses on different questions and provides a different — but partial — understanding of organizational change. We argue that coordinating the pluralistic insights from the four approaches provides a richer understanding of organization change than any one approach provides by itself.
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
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Explaining Development and Change in Organizations
van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329 · Cited by 3,762
Self-citationPutting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271 · Cited by 2,520
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2015) · Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2 · Cited by 2,147
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Transcending General Linear Reality
Abbott, A. (1988) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.2307/202114 · Cited by 716
Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726701548001 · Cited by 489 · cited 2×
“Some may object that representation of processes in empirical time series and mathematical models overly ‘variabilizes’ them (Tsoukas and Hatch 2001).”
Background
Cited by
Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0014 · Cited by 1,226
Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Roberts, A., & Xu, L. (2022) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3148 · Cited by 274
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840606068338 · Cited by 219
A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis
Juntunen, M., & Lehenkari, M. (2021) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1630813 · Cited by 99
(2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 87
Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems
Nerbel, J. F., & Kreutzer, M. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00625-8 · Cited by 37
Following the MAP (Methods, Approaches, Perspectives) in Information Systems Research
Levallet, N., Denford, J. S., & Chan, Y. E. (2021) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0964 · Cited by 23
The process of solving problems with self-service technologies: a study from the user’s perspective
Nili, A., Tate, M., & Johnstone, D. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-018-9304-0 · Cited by 21
Ekendahl, P., Bäckström, I., Norrman, A., & Näslund, D. (2026) · Journal of Change Management · doi:10.1080/14697017.2026.2638768 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1377-1404
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2108469387
- Cited by
- 1,000
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 46.25
- 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.
