The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Asking Questions of the Data: Memo Writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition
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
Cited by
A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149.
Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2023) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2022.2057287 · Cited by 2,014
Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019) · SAGE Open Medicine · doi:10.1177/2050312118822927 · Cited by 1,869
Thornberg, R. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 · Cited by 668
The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019) · doi:10.4135/9781526485656 · Cited by 614
The place of the literature review in grounded theory research
Dunne, C. (2011) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930 · Cited by 488
Metadata
- Authors
- Lempert, L. B.
- Venue
- The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2007
- Pages
- 245-264
- OpenAlex
- W2501576715
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.10
- Type
- book chapter
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Asking Questions of the Data: Memo Writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781848607941.n12
- The paper
- Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking Questions of the Data: Memo Writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n12
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.
