Search results

Social movements can create profound change in social systems. These movements are often, however, based on grievances and use contentious strategies to achieve their objectives. This study examines two movements that were started using Appreciative Inquiry. These “appreciative movements” are contrasted with a typical, grievance-based social movement. Five attributes of appreciative social movements are proposed, and contrasted with contentious social movements. Appreciative movements are based on aspirations, not grievances; collective responsibility, not blame; use of instead of conflict with existing social structures; collaborative instead of contentious methods of change; and co-optation by the mobilized instead of by elites. These attributes show the possibility from positive forms of mass mobilization, and highlight the potential impact from integrating research and practice on social movements and Appreciative Inquiry.

This chapter explores the transformation that occurs during an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) summit through the lens of Rogerian client-centered therapy. The client-centered approach stems from the work of Carl Rogers, who theorized that humans have a tendency toward self-actualization, or that they can be trusted to move constructively toward the fulfillment of their inherent potential. According to Rogers, a client-centered therapeutic approach enables an individual to radically alter the self-concept and achieve transformational change, but only when six specific conditions are met. When these conditions are met, the result is generativity at the individual level as the client’s world opens up with new possibilities. Starting from the assumption that individuals and higher-level human systems share common elements as open systems, the opening up of the self-structure at the individual level can be seen as similar to the system coming together in a generative way during an AI summit. Rogerian theory and AI share a common set of underlying principles, and these principles guide the similar approach to change at these different levels. Here, a community AI summit in Worcester, Massachusetts, is viewed through a Rogerian lens in an attempt to shed light on how these conditions might also operate in higher-level human systems aimed at enabling generativity.

What proof have the public, independent of the assertions of the makers, that all the firms whose products are sold indifferently by the shopkeepers use only the best materials; or, indeed, that a large number of the articles sold are not mixtures more or less objectionable or fraudulent ? This, in effect, is the question put by a writer in a West of England newspaper, and it might be used as a text upon which to write a lengthy homily on the adulteration question and on the astonishing gullibility of the public. As a matter of fact the only evidence of the character and quality of food and other products, in regard to which there is no independent guarantee, is that which is afforded by the standing of the makers, and to some extent of the firms which offer them for sale. And this evidence cannot, under any circumstances, be looked upon as constituting proof. The startling allegations so commonly put forward by advertisers with respect to their wares, while they may be ineffective in so far as thinking people are concerned, must nevertheless be found pecuniarily advantageous since the expense involved in placing them under the eyes of the public would otherwise hardly be incurred. Many of these advertised allegations are, of course, entirely unjustifiable, or are incapable of proof. It may be hoped that the lavish manner in which they are set out, and their very extravagance, may, in time, result in producing a general effect not contemplated by the advertisers. In the meantime it cannot be too often pointed out that proof, such as that which is required for the satisfaction of the retailer and for the protection of the public, can only be obtained by the exercise of an independent control, and, in certain cases, by the maintenance of efficient independent inspection in addition, so that a guarantee of a character entirely different to that which may be offered, even by a firm of the highest eminence, may be supplied.

Traditionally, the main goal of empirical research has been to test theories. Yet, theory-testing is problematical in the social sciences. Findings from empirical studies have proven hard to replicate and there is a lack of progress in creating a coherent and cumulative knowledge base. There are both practical and epistemological issues that prevent effective empirical tests. It is difficult to operationalize constructs and design decisive tests of theories. The laws and regularities posited in theories in the natural sciences are independent of human actors, while theories in the social sciences describe systems and structures that are created and maintained by human actors. Nonetheless, human actors are sometimes guided by theories. They may change their behavior or make different decisions based on academically produced knowledge. This relationship is usually mediated by the use of tools of various sorts (i.e., design principles, diagrams, or stories). I discuss why scholars should conduct empirical research to test the pragmatic validity of tools that are derived from theories rather than testing the scientific validity of the theories themselves.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

It is argued that the service-dominant (S-D) view of the value co-creation concept is mainly of a macro nature and is difficult to examine empirically. In this regard, marketing research using the micro-foundation theory proposes some conceptual models, through which relationships (involving value co-creation) at a micro/meso level may be studied. The purpose of this paper is to add to such exchanges regarding value co-creation and conceptualize the link of embeddedness of an actor (in a service-ecosystem) to their engagement in the value co-creation process.

The authors draw on the S-D logic and the value co-creation concept and make propositions with regard to two micro-foundational concepts: actor engagement and actor embeddedness.

The authors show that actor embeddedness can be considered as an antecedent of actor engagement, which leads to value co-creation at a macro level and perceived value in context at the micro level.

The authors fill some gaps in literature with regard to S-D logic and value co-creation by combining two micro-foundational concepts: actor engagement and actor embeddedness and propose how through these, some macro-level outcomes such as value co-creation and resource integration may be determined.

This paper aims to demonstrate the applicability of a theatrical framework for improving the effectiveness of the knowledge transfer of service research findings to practitioners.

A case study approach is adopted. The operation of a practitioner-oriented seminar is examined through a theatrical lens to establish the extent to which direction, audience participation and creativity, emotions and visual aesthetics can contribute to bridging the academia-practitioner divide.

Planning a practitioner-oriented seminar performance is as important as planning the program content. Effective knowledge transfer requires active audience engagement, activation of favorable audience emotions and an enjoyable learning process. The lack of these requirements can render written dissemination by journal papers relatively ineffective in reaching and engaging practitioners.

Findings are based on one case study: a seminar delivered to practitioners on “service theater”.

In addition to face-to-face seminars, contemporary dissemination methods (webinars, podcasts) can apply the theatrical lessons introduced and evaluated. Practitioners do not respond positively to only written declarative information, through academic papers and/or PowerPoint slides, from academicians.

The article recognizes that dissemination of service research findings is, itself, a service, requiring depth of thought and understanding.