Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 500

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigm of Inquiry, and Postmodernism

Annells, Merilyn·1996·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/104973239600600306
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The understanding of grounded theory method is partly dependent on an awareness of the method's ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives; the traditional symbolic interactionist theoretical underpinnings; and the identification of the relevant paradigm of inquiry within which the method resides. An analysis of these factors suggests that grounded theory method has traditionally been sited in a postpositivist inquiry paradigm but is evolving and moving toward the constructivist inquiry paradigm. The suggestion is made that the postmodern status of the method is also evolving.

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 · 10.1177/104973239600600306

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Abercrombie, N., 1986, The Penguin dictionary of sociology
  2. Blumer, H., 1969, Principles of sociology, 67
  3. Blumer, H., 1969, Symbolic interactionism
  4. Brown, C., 1981, Understanding society: An introduction to sociological theory
  5. Chenitz, W., 1986, From practice to grounded theory—Qualitative research
  6. Denzin, N., 1988, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 9, 51
  7. Denzin, N., 1989, The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods
  8. Glaser, B., 1978, Theoretical sensitivity: Further advances in the methodology of grounded theory
  9. Glaser, B., 1992, Basics of grounded theory analysis
  10. Glaser, B., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research
  11. Guba, E., 1989, Fourth generation evaluation
  12. Guba, E., 1994, Handbook of qualitative research, 105
  13. 10.1080/15295039209366832 · DOI
  14. Mead, G. H., 1962, Mind, self, and society
  15. Munhall, P., 1986, Nursing research: A qualitative perspective
  16. 10.1037/0708-5591.35.2.167 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1007/978-1-349-13387-1 · DOI
  18. Schwandt, T., 1994, Handbook of qualitative research, 118
  19. Strauss, A., Monograph of the invitational Conference on Research Methods for Validating Nursing Diagnoses, 4
  20. Strauss, A., 1990, Basics of qualitative research—Grounded theory procedures and techniques
  21. Strauss, A., 1994, Handbook of qualitative research, 273
  22. Thompson, J., 1990, Advancing nursing science through research, 223
  23. 10.1177/104973239400400203 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Annells, M.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1996-08
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
379-393
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/104973239600600306
OpenAlex
W2127288864
Cited by
500
References
4
FWCI
23.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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.