The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Critical theory and methodology
Abstract
Raymond Morrow's book traces the history and outlines the major tenets of critical theory for an undergraduate audience. He exemplifies the theory through an analysis of two leading social theorists: Jurgen Habermas and Anthony Giddens. Specific to this volume is the emphasis on the link between critical theory and empirical research and social science methodology, often thought to be incompatible
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
Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal
Gephart, R. P. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2004.14438580 · Cited by 1,520
‘Clear as Mud’: Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690300200201 · Cited by 1,256
Bullying in the nursing profession
Randle, J. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02728.x · Cited by 377
Yeung, H. W.-C. (1997) · Progress in Human Geography · doi:10.1191/030913297668207944 · Cited by 300
Burnette, C. E., & Figley, C. R. (2017) · Social Work · doi:10.1093/sw/sww065 · Cited by 195
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1995-01-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 32-3042-32-3042
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1765434025
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Critical theory and methodology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.32-3042
- The paper
- Critical theory and methodology. (1995). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.32-3042
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.
