Abstract
ABSTRACT A systematic review of grounded theory method (GTM) research in urban planning and design produced 42 articles using quality assessment guidelines from Hutchinson et al. Most articles did not apply the key tenets of the GTM, and their results were generally descriptive themes and narratives or thick descriptions, instead of abstractions or theories, as is the GTM goal. Accordingly, better quality GTM research in urban planning and design requires a proper understanding of the nature, characteristics, and tenets of the GTM, as well as recognition of its various versions and constraints as a qualitative method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
