Search results

In this response, we provide our insights and replies on the commentaries of Riordan and Lawrence. To Lawrence’s point that few organizational scholars grow up in multi-level communities, we offer the adage “sad, but true.” We agree with Riordan and Lawrence that better multi-level education is necessary to improve the diversity and demography field, and therefore offer suggestions regarding how to increase our levels-based proficiencies in research. Primarily, however, we focus our suggestions on improving levels-based theoretical proficiencies within diversity and demography research and augment those recommendations we provided in our review study. Before addressing levels-based measurement and analytic issues, the overwhelming inattention paid to multi-level theoretical issues within diversity and demography must be reconciled.

We appreciate the perspectives developed in the Riordan and Lawrence commentaries regarding our evaluation of levels of analysis issues in diversity and demography research. We will address both commentaries, as each tended to focus on a different aspect of our diversity and demography review. For example, Riordan makes the point that we did not provide specific enough solutions to direct future research in the diversity and demography area, while Lawrence takes a more philosophical approach to examining the concepts of diversity and demography research as a whole.

This commentary provides a review of the Dionne, Randel, Jaussi and Chun paper on levels of analysis issues within diversity and demography research. The commentary points out the complexity of levels of analysis issues within the field of diversity. Additionally, it identifies some questions that researchers should be addressing about levels of analysis issues within diversity research.

Levels of analysis and multi‐level issues have a long history and are becoming increasingly important in many areas of management and the organizational sciences. Nevertheless, specifics and clarity regarding these issues can be elusive for scholars and educators. To help overcome this difficulty, the paper aims to use the Constitution of the United States of America and the US presidential election to illustrate levels of analysis and multi‐level issues.

The paper uses the example of the Constitution of the United States of America and the US presidential election to illustrate levels of analysis and multi‐level issues in the areas of management and the organizational sciences.

The paper reveals the levels of analysis and multi‐level issues using the US Constitution and US presidential elections.

The value of the paper to scholars and educators is the explanation and illustration of levels of analysis and multi‐level issues using the US Constitution and US presidential elections.

In response to Ford and Sullivan's chapter, this commentary poses a number of questions intended to help future research efforts ascertain whether levels of analysis and phases of new-venture emergence happen concurrently. Strongly in agreement with Ford and Sullivan's call for a process approach toward the study of entrepreneurial ventures, the commentary focuses on the potential processes associated with different levels of analysis that might possibly underlie the enactment and effectuation processes depicted in their model. Through the examination of these underlying processes, questions for future research are raised to help address the question, “Do levels and phases of new-venture emergence always happen together?”

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

Organizational researchers have become increasingly interested in multi-level constructs – that is, constructs that are meaningful at multiple levels of analysis. However, despite the plethora of theoretical and empirical work on multi-level topics, explicit frameworks for validation of multi-level constructs have yet to be fully developed. Moreover, available principles for conducting construct validation assume that the construct resides at a single level of analysis. We propose a five-step framework for conceptualizing and testing multi-level constructs by integrating principles of construct validation with recent advancements in multi-level theory, research, and methodology. The utility of the framework is illustrated using theoretical and empirical examples.

This article presents a comprehensive and qualitative review of how levels of analysis issues have been addressed in the diversity and demography literature. More than 180 conceptual and empirical publications (i.e. book chapters and journal articles) in this field are reviewed and coded regarding the specific incorporation of levels of analysis in theory and hypothesis formulation, representation of levels of analysis in measurement of constructs and variables, appropriateness of data-analytic techniques given the explicit or implied levels of analysis, and alignment between levels of analysis in theory and data in regard to drawing inferences and conclusions. Although the body of diversity and demography literature continues to grow, levels of analysis issues are rarely considered. Only a few reviewed studies address levels of analysis issues in theory development, and no reviewed studies employ appropriate multi-level data analytic techniques. Implications for future research are discussed, and recommendations for incorporating levels of analysis into diversity and demography research are provided.

This chapter sets forth a form of comparative analysis that is explicitly organizational, in the sense that it uses cross-level, contextual or compositional, analysis to explain organizational-level observations, especially comparisons between organizations. Inter-organizational comparisons often surface paradoxical results, in the form of unexpected differences among similar kinds of organizations, or unexpected similarities among different kinds of organizations. The value of using comparative analysis in these cases is that the information required to unravel organizational-level puzzling results is often located at a higher or lower levels. The proposed form of comparative analysis thus extends the conventional top-down, unidirectional form by adding a bottom-up component – making it bi-directional. In addition to introducing an organization-centered form of comparative analysis, the chapter offers suggestions for its practice and speculates about the potential benefits of its broad application within organizational studies.

The study here examines how business actors adapt to changes in networks by analyzing their perceptions or their network pictures. The study is exploratory or iterative in the sense that revisions occur to the research question, method, theory, and context as an integral part of the research process.

Changes within networks receive less research attention, although considerable research exists on explaining business network structures in different research traditions. This study analyzes changes in networks in terms of the industrial network approach. This approach sees networks as connected relationships between actors, where interdependent companies interact based on their sensemaking of their relevant network environment. The study develops a concept of network change as well as an operationalization for comparing perceptions of change, where the study introduces a template model of dottograms to systematically analyze differences in perceptions. The study then applies the model to analyze findings from a case study of Norwegian/Japanese seafood distribution, and the chapter provides a rich description of a complex system facing considerable pressure to change. In-depth personal interviews and cognitive mapping techniques are the main research tools applied, in addition to tracer studies and personal observation.

The dottogram method represents a valuable contribution to case study research as it enables systematic within-case and across-case analyses. A further theoretical contribution of the study is the suggestion that network change is about actors seeking to change their network position to gain access to resources. Thereby, the study also implies a close relationship between the concepts network position and the network change that has not been discussed within the network approach in great detail.

Another major contribution of the study is the analysis of the role that network pictures play in actors' efforts to change their network position. The study develops seven propositions in an attempt to describe the role of network pictures in network change. So far, the relevant literature discusses network pictures mainly as a theoretical concept. Finally, the chapter concludes with important implications for management practice.

The grounded theory method is more appropriate than just a grounded theory “approach,” for teasing out the detail of the level of analysis of constructs. Also, triangulation is important to this kind of research, but the methodological distinctions between qualitative and quantitative data and qualitative and quantitative analysis need to be made clear when mapping out a methodology. The contention here is that the qualitative analysis of quantitative data is more important than the quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative analysis in line with the full grounded theory method will generate explanations of how and why a construct is represented at various levels of analysis. In turn, such an explanation can illustrate whether the questionnaire instrument is representing the levels of analysis of the construct adequately or not.