Marketing for Acceptance
Main Article Content
Abstract
Becoming a researcher comes with the credentializing pressure to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals (Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 2007; Glaser, 2008). The work intensive process is exacerbated when the author’s research method is grounded theory. This study investigated the concerns of early and experienced grounded theorists to discover how they worked towards publishing research projects that applied grounded theory as a methodology. The result was a grounded theory of marketing for acceptance that provides the reader with insight into ways that classic grounded theorists have published their works. This is followed by a discussion of ideas for normalizing classic grounded theory research methods in our substantive fields.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Bryant and Charmaz (2007). The sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. . Calvin, A. (2004) Haemodialysis patients and end-of-life decisions: a theory of personal preservation. Nursing theory and concept development or analysis, 36(5), 558-566.
Calvin, A. & Eriksen, L. (2006) Readiness in individuals with kidney failure. Nephrology nursing journal, 33(2), 165-171.
Chen, H. & Boore, J. (2009) Using a synthesized technique for grounded theory in nursing research. Journal of clinical nursing, 18, 2251-2260. Glaser, B. (1978) Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1992b) Doing grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Groves, T. (2006) Quality and value: how can we get the best out of peer review? Nature. Retrieved September 12, 2009 from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04995.html.
Hunt, L., Lamelin, R. & Saunders, K. (2009) Managing forest road access on public lands: a conceptual model of conflict. Society and natural resources, 22, 128-142.
Lee, C. (2006) Perspective: Peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers. Nature. Retrieved on September 12, 2009 from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05034.html.
McGlachlan, D. & Justice, J. (2009) A grounded theory of international student well-being. Journal of theory construction and testing, 13(1), 27-32.
O’Gorman, L. (2008) The frustrating state of peer review. International Association for pattern recognition newsletter, 30(1), 3-6. Sandgran, A., Thulesius, H., Petersson, K. & Fridland, B. (2007) Doing good care-A study of palliative home nursing care. International journal of qualitative studies in health and well-being, 2, 227-235. Swahnburg, K., Wijma, B. & Hearn, L. (2009) Mentally pinioned: men’s perceptions of being abused in healthcare. International journal of men’s health, 8(1), 60-71.
Thulesius, H. & Grahn, B. (2007) Reincentivising –A new theory of work and work absence. Biomed central health services research, 7, retrieved on October 27, 2008 from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/7/100.
Verrier, A. (1994) Perceptions of life on the tenure track. Thought and action: the NEA higher education journal, 9(2), 95-124.
Winkler, K. (2009, April 3) Reviewing the reviewers: A Q & A with Michelle Lamont. The Chronicle of higher education.