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

The literature on identification in organizations is surprisingly diverse and large. This article reviews the literature in terms of four fundamental questions. First, under “What is identification?,” it outlines a continuum from narrow to broad formulations and differentiates situated identification from deep identification and organizational identification from organizational commitment. Second, in answer to “Why does identification matter?,” it discusses individual and organizational outcomes as well as several links to mainstream organizational behavior topics. Third, regarding “How does identification occur?,” it describes a process model that involves cycles of sensebreaking and sensegiving, enacting identity and sensemaking, and constructing identity narratives. Finally, under “One or many?,” it discusses team, workgroup, and subunit; relational; occupational and career identifications; and how multiple identifications may conflict, converge, and combine.

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

We distill existing literature on theoretical contribution into two dimensions, originality (incremental or revelatory) and utility (scientific or practical). We argue for a revision in the way scholars approach the utility dimension by calling for a view of theorizing that would enable theories with more "scope" (both scientific and practical utility). We also argue for an orientation toward "prescience" as a way of achieving scope and fulfilling our scholarly role of facilitating organizational and societal adaptiveness.