Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development
Citations
40,005 citations
22,673 citations
Cites background or methods from "Time and Transition in Work Teams: ..."
...Gersick (1988), for example, added several cases to her original set of student teams in order to more closely observe transition point behaviors among project teams....
[...]
...Some investigators employ only some of these data collection methods (e.g., Gersick, 1988, used only obser- 537 This content downloaded from 129.240.204.115 on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:07:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions vations for the first half of her study), or they may add others…...
[...]
...Gersick (1988) followed a similar strategy of diverse sampling in order to enhance the generalizability of her model of group development....
[...]
...Yet, as Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue, it is the intimate connection with empirical reality that permits the development of a testable, relevant, and valid theory. This paper describes building theories from case studies. Several aspects of this process are discussed in the literature. For example, Glaser and Strauss (1967) detailed a comparative method for developing grounded theory, Yin (1981, 1984) described the design of case study research, and Miles and Huberman (1984) codified a series of procedures for analyzing qualitative data....
[...]
...Gersick (1988) used this tactic in separating the analyses of the student group cases from her other cases....
[...]
13,581 citations
Cites background from "Time and Transition in Work Teams: ..."
...Classic scholars (Chandler, 1962; Whyte, 1941) as well as the authors of highly regarded AMJ papers (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Sutton & Raphaeli, 1988) have used the method....
[...]
...Gersick (1994), Hargadon and Douglas (2001), and Mintzberg and Waters (1982) are exemplars of this approach....
[...]
...Indeed, papers that build theory from cases are often regarded as the “most interesting” research (Bartunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006) and are among the most highly cited pieces in AMJ (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989a; Gersick, 1988), with impact disproportionate to their numbers....
[...]
...Not surprisingly then, the winning authors (Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Wood, & Hawkins, 2005; Gilbert, 2005) of the most recent AMJ Best Article Award relied on this method....
[...]
...Gersick (1994), Hargadon and Douglas (2001), and Mintzberg and Waters (1982) are exemplars of this approach.(1) But presenting a relatively complete and unbroken narrative of each case is infeasible for multiple-case research, particularly as the number of cases increases. If the researcher relates the narrative of each case, then the theory is lost and the text balloons. So the challenge in multiple-case research is to stay within spatial constraints while also conveying both the emergent theory that is the research objective and the rich empirical evidence that supports the theory. Coping with the trade-off between rich story and well-grounded theory is easier to do in a multicase book or a single-case paper. But in journal articles, multicase researchers face a particularly difficult trade-off between theory and empirical richness. It can be especially challenging to satisfy readers who expect the extensive narratives of single-case research. They ask, Where’s the rich story? The best way to address this challenge of “better stories vs. better theories” is to develop a theory in sections or by distinct propositions in such a way that each is supported by empirical evidence. Thus, the overarching organizing frame of the paper is the theory, and each part of the theory is demonstrated by evidence from at least some of the cases. But since it is generally not realistic to support every theoretical proposition with every case within a text itself, the use of extensive tables and other visual devices that summarize the related case evidence are central to signaling the depth and detail of empirical grounding. In other words, the use of summary tables and aids that summarize the case evidence complements the selective story descriptions of the text and further emphasizes the rigor and depth of the empirical grounding of the theory. A separate table that summarizes the evidence for each theoretical construct is a particularly effective way to present the case evidence. These “construct tables” summarize the case evidence and indicate how the focal construct is “measured,” thus increasing the “testability” of the theory and creating a particularly strong bridge from the qualitative evidence to theory-testing research. Graebner (2004), Gilbert (2005), and Zott and Huy (2007) are excellent examples of blending construct tables with selected text descriptions....
[...]
5,947 citations
5,240 citations
References
53,267 citations
44,847 citations
36,808 citations
34,393 citations
4,468 citations
"Time and Transition in Work Teams: ..." refers background in this paper
...There was no initial "storming" (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) in this group....
[...]