From the Editor’s Desk Research Publishing: The Unique Value of The Grounded Theory Review

Main Article Content

Alvita Nathaniel

Abstract

A few weeks ago, I received an email from a colleague who had submitted a paper to a highly regarded, high impact journal. The study was well designed and well described as a classic grounded theory. As often happens, a peer reviewer for the journal was not familiar with the tenets and procedures of classic grounded theory. Since research methods, procedures, and language vary among the varieties of classic and remodeled grounded theory methods are not interchangeable with those of classic grounded theory, the peer reviewer’s suggestion was inaccurate and inappropriate. Yet like many classic grounded theorists, the author needed to find a way to satisfy a reviewer who was unfamiliar with the specifics of the method. This is a tightrope that many classic grounded theorists walk— trying to appease poorly informed peer reviewers and journal editors while avoiding language that violates the major premises of classic grounded theory. This is never the case with The Grounded Theory Review.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nathaniel, A. (2023). From the Editor’s Desk: Research Publishing: The Unique Value of The Grounded Theory Review. Grounded Theory Review, 22(01), 1–3. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/104
Section
Articles

References

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussion. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. A. (2005). Staying open: The use of theoretical codes in grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 5(1). https://groundedtheoryreview.com/2005/11/21/1487/

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.