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

This paper reports an ethnographic study of the initiation of a strategic change effort in a large, public university. It develops a new framework for understanding the distinctive character of the beginning stages of strategic change by tracking the first year of the change through four phases (labeled as envisioning, signaling, re‐visioning, and energizing). This interpretive approach suggests that the CEO's primary role in instigating the strategic change process might best be understood in terms of the emergent concepts of ‘sensemaking’ and ‘sensegiving’. Relationships between these central concepts and other important theoretical domains are then drawn and implications for understanding strategic change initiation are discussed.

Organizational identity usually is portrayed as that which is core, distinctive, and enduring about the character of an organization. We argue that because of the reciprocal interrelationships between identity and image, organizational identity, rather than enduring, is better viewed as a relatively fluid and unstable concept. We

No abstract

No abstract