Cited by 32Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Literature Review in Grounded Theory

Thornberg, Robert, Dunne, Ciarán·2019·The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4135/9781526485656.n12

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Glaserian grounded theory contrasts with Straussian and constructivist grounded theory on whether to review the literature.

    “In contrast to Glaserian grounded theory but in line with Straussian and constructivist grounded theory, we recommend that you review the literature”

    From The pursuit of quality in grounded theory (2021) · cites this paper as Thornberg and Dunne 2019

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Thornberg, R., & Dunne, C.
Venue
The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory
Published
2019
Pages
206-221
OpenAlex
W2943390285
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
17.59
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
grounded theory, qualitative research, evidence synthesis

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