CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 832Organizational Change and LeadershipManagement and Organizational StudiesOrganizational Management and Change

Longitudinal Field Research Methods for Studying Processes of Organizational Change

van de Ven, Andrew H., Huber, George P.·1990·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.1.3.213
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.1.3.213

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 3 · Cited by 832

Authors
van de Ven, A. H., & Huber, G. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota
  • University of Texas
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1990-08
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
213-219
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.1.3.213
OpenAlex
W2100063956
Cited by
832
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 52
FWCI
7.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
Keywords
organizational change, field experiments, process research

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