Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428106297812v1
11/3/430    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fendt, J.
Right arrow Articles by Sachs, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Grounded Theory Method in Management Research: Users Perspective

Jacqueline Fendt1* and Wladimir Sachs2

1 ESCP-EAP European School of Management
2 ESC Rennes School of Business

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: fendt{at}escp-eap.net.


   Abstract
The authors discuss the determination of quality in studies using grounded theory method (GTM). They concretely describe some misunderstandings associated with GTM and some malaises experienced with its orthodox application, drawing primarily on their own research experience and supporting their discussion with evidence from other researchers. They then confront their experience with current critical GTM literature and offer some observations of their own. The authors describe how the very strengths of GTM run the risk of being under-mined—and thus the quality of such research impaired—by an overly orthodox application of its rigorous objectification procedures. Therefore, they offer some pragmatic remedial suggestions. The authors conclude by calling for the continuing use of GTM in some of its newer forms and by reflecting on the importance of the process surrounding the use of the method, particularly in doctoral research.

First published on August 8, 2007, doi:10.1177/1094428106297812

Organizational Research Methods 2008;11:430.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
D. E. Bowen and A. C. Inkpen
Exploring the Role of "Global Mindset" in Leading Change in International Contexts
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, June 1, 2009; 45(2): 239 - 260.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organizational Research MethodsHome page
M. Easterby-Smith, K. Golden-Biddle, and K. Locke
Working With Pluralism: Determining Quality in Qualitative Research
Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 419 - 429.
[Abstract] [PDF]