The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TWO STRATEGIES FOR INDUCTIVE REASONING IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH.
Open accessAbstract
Incompleteness of inductive reasoning presents an enduring dilemma for organizational researchers. We examine two practical reasoning strategies—idealization and contextualization—that can be used at the pinnacle of this dilemma: when theoretical conclusions are drawn from empirical data. Understanding the two strategies can lead to more effective argumentation and evaluation. Appreciating the methodological incompleteness of both strategies, in turn, helps us distinguish between the methodological and the policy dimensions of organization-scientific debates.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,361
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,249
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 · Cited by 16,670
The Interpretation of Cultures
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128310 · Cited by 16,449
The Economic Institutions of Capitalism
Dugger, W. M. (1987) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.1987.11504638 · Cited by 14,786
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Building theories from case study research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009) · STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI · doi:10.3280/so2008-002004 · Cited by 11,299
A treatise of human nature (1739-40)
Hume, D. (1996) · The Sublime · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511620409.040 · Cited by 9,842
Cited by
Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0482 · Cited by 646
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839219887663 · Cited by 458
Rippa, P., & Secundo, G. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.013 · Cited by 361
Köhler, J., Sönnichsen, S. D., & Beske‐Jansen, P. (2022) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.3000 · Cited by 280
Abduction 101: Reasoning processes to aid discovery
Folger, R., & Stein, C. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.007 · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- KETOKIVI, M., & MANTERE, S.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2010-04-01
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 315-333
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025426606
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 88
- FWCI
- 18.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: TWO STRATEGIES FOR INDUCTIVE REASONING IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/amr.2010.48463336
- The paper
- KETOKIVI, M., & MANTERE, S. (2010). TWO STRATEGIES FOR INDUCTIVE REASONING IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.48463336
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.
