The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Grounded Theory Method in Management Research: Users' Perspectives
Abstract
The authors discuss the determination of quality in studies using grounded theory method (GTM). They concretely describe some misunderstandings associated with GTM and some malaises experienced with its orthodox application, drawing primarily on their own research experience and supporting their discussion with evidence from other researchers. They then confront their experience with current critical GTM literature and offer some observations of their own. The authors describe how the very strengths of GTM run the risk of being undermined—and thus the quality of such research impaired—by an overly orthodox application of its rigorous objectification procedures. Therefore, they offer some pragmatic remedial suggestions. The authors conclude by calling for the continuing use of GTM in some of its newer forms and by reflecting on the importance of the process surrounding the use of the method, particularly in doctoral research.
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
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
From 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 11×
“Their indeterminate, unselective application ‘‘invites a fundamentalist drift towards positivism’’ (Suddaby, 2006, p. 639).”
BackgroundInfluentialSituational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping After the Postmodern Turn
Clarke, A. E. (2003) · Symbolic Interaction · doi:10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553 · Cited by 892 · cited 2×
“…the original Glaser-Strauss and Corbin versions of the method and suggested modifications toward more constructivism (Charmaz, 1995a, 2000, 2006; Clarke, 2003; Seale, 1999) or critical realism (Downward, Finch, & Ramsay, 2002; Yeung, 1997); others argue with various degrees of exasperation for…”
BackgroundMethodCharmaz, K. (1995) · Rethinking Methods in Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781446221792.n3 · Cited by 650
Layder, D. (1998) · doi:10.4135/9781849209946 · Cited by 585 · cited 2×
“Dey (1999) proposes to take a ‘‘middle way,’’ an ‘‘amended . . . realist approach’’ (Layder, 1993), an ‘‘adaptive theory’’ (Haig, 1996; Layder, 1998), a ‘‘middle ground between postmodernism and positivism’’ (Charmaz, 2000, p. 510).”
Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920600989412 · Cited by 430
Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities
Goulding, C. (1999) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569910285805 · Cited by 271 · cited 1×
“Goulding (1998) suggests that ‘‘researcher introspection and the philosophical basis of a given methodology should form the starting-point for enquiry’’ (p. 869).”
Background
Cited by
Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109335949 · Cited by 644
The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work
Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351319 · Cited by 506
Belfrage, C., & Hauf, F. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616663239 · Cited by 259
The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method
Amsteus, M. N. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940691401300133 · Cited by 42
Identifying contradictions in an incumbent–startup ecosystem–an activity theory approach
Baloutsos, S., Karagiannaki, A., & Pramatari, K. (2022) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-04-2020-0114 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Fendt, J., & Sachs, W.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-08-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 430-455
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2143789931
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 43.51
- 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.
