Search results

Once Facebook transformed into Meta, a race to enter the metaverse began in all sectors of the economy. Being first has financial, technical and strategic costs, even if it can allow creating barriers to prevent others entering and establishing one’s brand as innovative. Being late, however, enables companies to benefit from more mature infrastructure and learning opportunities, but they risk being followers rather than leaders and missing opportunities. This study aims to discuss when organizations should consider entering the metaverse first, or whether they should come to it later.

To identify these conditions, 15 business strategy experts ranked 25 statements against each other about the metaverse and first- and late-entrant strategies.

When comparing the points of view of the 15 experts, four perspectives emerged. Three perspectives state that being a first mover can lead to a sustainable competitive advantage when organizations have strong capabilities regarding research and development, change management, learning and managing knowledge. The fourth perspective is skeptical that entering first can lead to a competitive advantage, given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the development of the metaverse.

A list of considerations when deciding to enter the metaverse is provided to managers.

This paper shifts the discourse on the metaverse from a technology-driven discussion to a strategic-asset-and-capabilities discussion.

Researchers are expected to find ways to make citizens participate in research to support responsible and open conceptions of science. New methods for engagement need to be found in order to facilitate engagement. The public needs to build its knowledge and be presented with time for reflexion so as to give an informed opinion on a given topic. Traditional consensus conferences are costly, and surveys are not building citizens’ understanding of science. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The author presents a case where engagement was realized based on Q-method and technique. A research protocol and the results of the engagement are presented.

This case shows that an adapted version of Q can lead to meaningful engagement for citizens and relevant data for researchers. Participants enjoy the process and can become advocates for a topic. The data collected allow to map out points of views which can be used to inform policy and research.

From a practical point of view, this paper suggests a new way to proceed to citizen engagement with science. It also opens research questions related to the use of the method itself.