Search results

It was not until the late 1960s that housing attracted much attention from academic social scientists. Since that time the literature has expanded widely and diversified, establishing housing with a specialised status in economics, sociology, politics, and in related subjects. As we would expect, the new literature covers a technical, statistical, theoretical, ideological, and historical range. Housing studies have not been conceived and interpreted in a monolithic way, with generally accepted concepts and principles, or with uniformly fixed and precise methodological approaches. Instead, some studies have been derived selectively from diverse bases in conventional theories in economics or sociology, or politics. Others have their origins in less conventional social theory, including neo‐Marxist theory which has had a wider intellectual following in the modern democracies since the mid‐1970s. With all this diversity, and in a context where ideological positions compete, housing studies have consequently left in their wake some significant controversies and some gaps in evaluative perspective. In short, the new housing intellectuals have written from personal commitments to particular cognitive, theoretical, ideological, and national positions and experiences. This present piece of writing takes up the two main themes which have emerged in the recent literature. These themes are first, questions relating to building and developing housing theory, and, second, the issue of how we are to conceptualise housing and relate it to policy studies. We shall be arguing that the two themes are closely related: in order to create a useful housing theory we must have awareness and understanding of housing practice and the nature of housing.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce an interpretive approach to examining the relation between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the good life, based on Michael Walzer's view of (connected) social criticism.

Through a discussion of Michael Walzer's view of social criticism, an interpretive approach to normative analysis of ICTs and the good life is introduced. The paper also offers an additional argument for the indispensability of prudential appraisals of ICTs in normative analysis of ICTs and the good life, which in turn strengthens the basis for the Walzerian approach proposed in the paper.

It is argued that an interpretive approach to normative analysis of ICTs and the good life, i.e. the Walzerian approach, is as viable as – if not superior to – a theory‐driven approach. It is also argued that actual appraisals of ICTs and the good life must be taken into account in the normative analysis.

It is only recently that “the good life” has become more visible in normative analysis of ICTs. This paper continues this relatively new line of research and proposes an alternative approach – as opposed to a theory‐driven approach – to this research programme.

This paper aims to address challenges in strategic management and tries to find ways to make a breakthrough. Strategic management theorists and practitioners need new scientific theories. In the modern turbulent environment, the extant strategic management research (SMR) and strategic management theories can neither satisfy the practical needs nor the theoretical developmental needs of strategic management.

The paper uses critique viewpoints that are unfolded according to the logic of how theories will satisfy the practical and theoretical needs. Physics and mathematics are regarded as the most beautiful and perfect scientific research fields, which help predict physical phenomena such as solar eclipse precisely. Therefore, the paper uses physics and mathematics as benchmarks to explore how SMR should make efforts to push the research further.

The paper provides a different viewpoint that will help strategic theorists and practitioners investigate and understand strategic phenomena more holistically. SMR should contribute to strategic theoretical and practical progress and not just to the game of academic game play. For the goal, the paper summarizes and refines the definition of strategic management in an alternative but practical and innovative perspective, and then delineates the criteria for SMR topic choice; identifies the dilemmas and challenges the SMR faces; and points out the new approaches the strategic management researchers should explore.

The paper challenges the mainstream of SMR by identifying the shortcomings, dilemmas, and challenges of the current SMR, and then highlights new ways to make breakthrough in SMR. The study will make strategic management scholars rethink their research and do meaningful research from the perspectives of theoretical contribution and practical guidance.

The purpose of this research is to analyze the effect of community and company participation on corporate governance and forest fire prevention in the forest zone, which has a high level of vulnerability to forest fires, in Indonesia.

The survey method in this research used a quantitative approach with the survey method, with the sample being forest areas having a high level of vulnerability to forest fires in Indonesia. This study used a questionnaire instrument and was conducted from January to March 2017. The research population was 105 villages located in forest areas in six major provinces known to endure the largest forest fires in Indonesia. From a total population of 258 villages, 52 were selected for this study. The proportional random sampling area technique was used. The data analysis methods selected in this research were descriptive analysis and inferential statistical analysis using the partial least squares method.

Community and company participation has a significant effect on the implementation of good governance. The implementation of good governance has a significant effect and community and company participation has no direct effect on the forest fire policy, but through good governance mediation, an indirect effect of community participation on the forest fire policy is seen.

No previous research has comprehensively studied the role of community and company participation and implementation of good forest fire governance on the forest fire policy.

The need to make a “theoretical contribution” is a presumed mandate that permeates any researcher’s career in the Social Sciences, yet all too often this remains a source of confusion and frustration. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on, and further develops, the principal themes discussed in the “OM Theory” workshop in Dublin in 2011 and the special sessions at the 2011 and the 2013 EurOMA Conferences in Cambridge and Dublin.

This paper presents six short essays that explore the role and use of theory in management research, and specifically ask what is a good or meaningful contribution to theory. The authors comment on the current state of theory in Operations Management (OM) (Harry Boer), the type of theories the authors have in OM (Chris Voss), the role of theory in increasing the general understanding of OM problems (Roger Schmenner), whether the authors can borrow theories from other fields or actually have theory “of our own” (Matthias Holweg), the different ways in which a contribution to theory can be made (Martin Kilduff), and how to construct a theoretical argument (Mark Pagell).

The authors argue that theory is fundamental to OM research, but that it is not the inevitable starting point; discovery and observation are equally important and often neglected avenues to contributing to theory. Also, there is no one right way to making a contribution, yet consistency between ontology, epistemology, and claimed contribution is what matters. The authors further argue that the choice of theory is critical, as a common mistake is trying to contribute to high-level theories borrowed from other fields. Finally, the authors recommend using theory parsimoniously, yet with confidence.

The paper presents a collection of viewpoints of senior scholars on the need for, and use of, theory in OM research.

We school administrators, like “practical” men everywhere, claim to have little use for theory. In this we delude ourselves, for we all theorize. The real distinction lies not between theory and practice, but between good theory and bad theory. Good theory is a hypothesis which has undergone verification and which has potential for explaining and predicting events, and for the production of new knowledge. The development of theory, with its constant demand for semantic accuracy and simplicity, is essential as a guide to research, and as a guide to action (e.g. in administration) where it should be regarded as a relational map rather than as an itinerary. The work of Halpin, Guba and Getzels, for example, illustrates that no theory is likely to be the theory. The development of a science of administration is dependent upon such theories. The alchemist described his observations in a half‐mythical language full of metaphors and allegories, not In scientific concepts. Today we appear to live only in an age of educational alchemy.

This article explicates the notion of using a “theoretical lens” to interpret research data, which has grown increasingly common in recent decades, often without a second thought about the implications of use of a mere metaphor in the pursuit of truth. Poets may not question that metaphors reveal truths, but should social scientists accept that?

It looks first at what theory means, then – and in greater detail – what the metaphor of a lens entails.

Drawing on the base analogy in optics, it identifies four mechanisms through which theory might act as a lens – adjustment, correction, distortion and augmentation-suppression, with examples based on theories of business strategy and organisation studies.

These four mechanisms involve two different ways of seeing – better and differently. With adjustment and correction see better what is, or perhaps what was. With distortion and especially augmentation-suppression, we see differently, which helps us imagine what might be, or what we might have overlooked. They help us escape narrow silos of thinking. Researchers and students alike need to be aware of all four lenses of theory and be ready to experiment.

It argues that if some theories try to help us see better, others push us to see differently, with implications for the practice and teaching of research methods.

Lean remains popular in a wide range of private and public sectors and continues to attract a significant amount of research. However, most of this research is not grounded in theory. This paper presents and discusses different expert viewpoints on the role of theory in lean research and practice and provides guidelines for future research.

Seven experienced lean authors independently provide their views to the question “is Lean a theory?” before Rachna Shah summarizes the viewpoints and provides a holistic outlook for lean research.

Authors agree, disagree and sometimes agree to disagree. However, a close look reveals agreement on several key points. The paper concludes that Lean is not a theory but has plenty of theoretical underpinnings. Many lean-related theories provide promising opportunities for future research.

As researchers, we are asked to justify our research drawing on “theory,” but what does that mean for a practice-driven phenomenon such as lean? This paper provides answers and directions for future research.

Leadership, organizational, and institutional theories provide competing explanations on the nature of leadership and role of leaders. Part of the problem is that each theory is often studied in isolation, leading to incomplete perspectives on the essence of leadership in value- driven contexts. A holistic paradigm that blends the three dominant models for understanding the work of the collective is warranted and necessary to optimize organizational outcomes. This article briefly highlights the contributions and limitations of each frame and provides an overview of complexity theory as a model for reconciling major differences. The paper provides specific perspectives, practices, and metaphors for navigating the collective to bring about desired outcomes.

This research paper aims to discover the elements of good physician leadership as perceived by physicians and to find out how the findings connect to the leadership theory.

The subjects (n = 50) of this qualitative study are physicians from four hierarchical levels (residents/specialising physicians, specialists, heads of departments and chief physicians). Content analysis with a constructivist-interpretative approach by thematisation was the chosen method, and it was also analysed how major leadership theories relate to good physician leadership.

Physician leaders are expected to possess the professional skills of physicians, understand how the work affects physicians’ lives and be competent in applying suitable leadership approaches following different situations and people. Trust, fairness, empathy, social skills, two-way communication skills, regular feedback, collegial respect and emotional intelligence are expected. As medical expertise connects leaders and followers, success in medical leadership comes from credibility in medical expertise, making medical leadership an inseparable part of good physician leadership. Subordinates are physician colleagues, who have their informal leadership roles on their hierarchical levels, making physician leadership a multidimensional leadership setting wherein formal leaders lead informal leaders, which blurs the traditional leader–follower boundary. In summary, good physician leadership is leadership through medical expertise combined with good manners, collegiality and traits from different kinds of leadership theories.

This study discovers elements of good physician leadership in a Finnish health-care context in which no similar prior empirical research has been carried out.