For all its richness and potential for discovery, qualitative research has been critiqued as too often lacking in scholarly rigor. The authors summarize a systematic approach to new concept development and grounded theory articulation that is designed to bring ''qualitative rigor'' to the conduct and presentation of inductive research.Keywords qualitative rigor, inductive research, grounded theory, new concept development What does it take to imbue an inductive study with ''qualitative rigor'' while still retaining the creative, revelatory potential for generating new concepts and ideas for which such studies are best known? How can inductive researchers apply systematic conceptual and analytical discipline that leads to credible interpretations of data and also helps to convince readers that the conclusions are plausible and defensible? These questions represent perennial concerns among qualitative researchers and were the prime motivators for developing an approach to inductive research designed not only to surface new concepts, but also to generate persuasive new theories (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). Over the past 20þ years, we have elaborated and refined this approach as a way of conducting qualitative, interpretive research and also as a way of guiding our analyses and presentation of that research.Another impetus for developing the approach was the recognition that in our field we often design and execute theory development work according to the precepts of the traditional scientific method, which often leads us to engage in progressive extensions of existing knowledge as a way of discovering new knowledge. This venerable orientation, however, most often trains our attention on refining the existing ideas we use to navigate the theoretical world. Such an approach is appropriate

We investigated the processes involved in forming an organizational identity, which we studied during the founding of a distinctive new college by using an interpretive, insider-outsider research approach. The emergent grounded theory model suggests that organizational identity formed via the interplay of eight notable processes, four of which occurred in more-or-less sequential, stage-like fashion —(1) articulating a vision, (2) experiencing a meanings void, (3) engaging in experiential contrasts, and (4) converging on a consensual identity—plus four recurrent processes that were associated with two or more of the sequential stages: (5) negotiating identity claims, (6) attaining optimal distinctiveness, (7) performing liminal actions, and (8) assimilating legitimizing feedback. The findings show that internal and external, as well as micro and macro influences affected the forging of an organizational identity. In addition, we found that both social construction and social actor views of identity-related processes were not only germane to the formation of organizational identity but that these processes were also mutually constitutive in creating a workable identity.

No abstract