Search results

The chapter aims to enhance our understanding of “opportunity” in the context of social entrepreneurship through a paradigm interplay juxtaposing a functionalist thematic analysis and interpretivist sensemaking. This paradigmatic contrasting identifies differences and connections in the tensions of: linearity and simplicity/dynamism and complexity; forward/backward, generalizability/situated relationality, and value-laden/value-neutral. These contrasts deepen our understanding of “opportunity” so that the theoretical and practical implications can be seen.

Purpose – The paper aims to highlight the potential of paradigm interplay for providing greater insight into entrepreneurship research, in this case definitions of the entrepreneur. Design/methodology/approach – Literature from entrepreneurship, organisation studies and strategy highlights the potential of multiple paradigm research. We demonstrate how to conduct such a study through paradigm interplay by applying four contrasting research perspectives to four case studies of habitual entrepreneurs. Findings – The practical challenges of conducting multiple paradigm research are illustrated. A number of consistent themes across all four paradigms provide some insight into the reasons why it is difficult to agree on a single definition of the entrepreneur. Insights into the value and operationalisation of multiple paradigm research in the field of entrepreneurship are provided. Research limitations/implications – An exhaustive review of definitions of the entrepreneur is not provided. This is a study into how multiple paradigm research can be used to enrich understanding. Advice for the conduct of studies employing paradigm interplay is presented. Practical implications – The same individuals or firms can be included or excluded depending on the definition employed. This can lead to confusion particularly in establishing eligibility and applicability of specific policy measures. Full awareness of underlying assumptions is required. Originality/value – Paradigm interplay is a new approach for entrepreneurship research

This article aims to explain the role of philosophical anchors and research paradigms in business research, and how they can be extrapolated in the transformative era of automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS) in the midst of disruption, volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (DVUCA).

This article entails a general review based on the 3Es of exposure, expertise and experience, delving into the ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological and rhetorical aspects of the major research paradigms—i.e. positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, interpretivism and pragmatism—and their interplay with the emergent trends shaping business research.

This article underscores the multifaceted nature of business research in the modern day, with an increasing need for blending, or shifting between, research paradigms to address the complex issues arising from automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS). This article also highlights the nuanced interplay between research paradigms and theoretical perspectives, demonstrating the rich, diverse potential of business research inquiries.

While this article provides a broad overview of the interplay between research paradigms and emerging trends, future research could explore each of these interplays in greater detail, conducting empirical studies or utilizing specific case studies.

Researchers and practitioners should be open to adopting, combining or switching between different paradigms according to the demands of their research questions, context and trends shaping the business landscape, thereby underscoring the need for methodological flexibility and reflexivity in business research.

The shift toward embracing digital transformations and integrating sustainability in business research holds significant implications, driving socially responsible and sustainable business practices at the micro-level, and by extension, industrial revolution and sustainable development at the macro-level.

This article offers a holistic and contextualized view of the philosophy of science and research paradigms for business research, bridging the gap between philosophical foundations and contemporary research trends.

The colors of change is an overview of change paradigms, created about two decades ago, that has been intensively used, tested, refined, shared, and elaborated by practitioners and academics alike. Here, the “color theory” is presented as it is now, and is situated within the literature. Its four main applications are described as well as rules of thumb that have been derived from reflective practice. This chapter illustrates that the color theory is clearly not one thing to all people, as it is understood in very different ways, both in terms of its theoretical foundations as well as the complexity of its applications. This probably adds to the versatility of the theory. Bringing together key insights about the color theory for academics and practitioners, this chapter strives both to give a concise overview and to explore its richness.

This paper seeks to argue that managers need to apply a holistic and long‐term approach in their understanding of strategic alliances' paradigms to inform decisions. Owing to the complexity of strategic alliance scenarios it is often a difficult task for management to know what information is required in order to take such decisions. It is suggested here that six widely used motivational paradigms in the formation of interorganisational relationships (transaction cost economics, resource dependence, strategic choice, stakeholder theory, organizational learning, and institutional theory) can be used not only during the formation stages of alliances but also during an alliance's lifecycle to help in decision making.

The paper proposes a discussion of possible shortcomings in the literature on motivational paradigms based on a review of the pertinent literature and, with the help of previously published cases/examples, suggests a new conceptual perspective of the paradigms.

The paper explains how and why motivational paradigms could be viewed as an interrelated web of issues throughout a strategic alliance's entire lifecycle – and not just at their formation stage when, often, they are used singly and in isolation of one another. It is proposed that their continuous and holistic use contributes to a manager's awareness of possible issues and helps his/her strategic management and decision taking. This new perspective is presented conceptually in a model.

For decision makers and managers: the proposed perspective will enhance their management and decision‐taking processes by increasing their awareness and acting as an aide‐mémoire of issues they need to consider/investigate and will reduce the possibility of alliance failure. For educators, it will expand the scope of traditional alliance formation paradigms and inform their teaching and research.

This is a novel approach to a traditional theory that expands its scope and usefulness.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on scientific models in conceptualising the evolutionary bases of contemporary behaviours, and make cross‐species comparisons, to account for male managerial activities in situ in health organizations.

In the animal world, males of many species display in order to induce females to mate. Such lekking behaviour involves inter alia, strutting, puffing out, catching attention via the use of ornamental physical characteristics, exhibiting gaudily‐coloured body parts, singing or splashing, and other courting and wooing strategies. The paper applies these behavioural repertoires as an explanatory device for male‐dominant organizational lekking in a set of contemporary settings. It draws on six studies of managerial talk, appearance and behaviour in order to do so.

Within the organizational lek male managers display mainly by power dressing, positioning, and exercising power and influence via verbal and behavioural means. Social and religious mores prohibit overt sexual coupling in organizations but lekking for other rewards is nevertheless pursued by male managers. The paper explores this managerial patterning, compares it to the lekking behaviour of other species, and discusses points of comparison and departure. It shows how male managers display within various sub‐habitats, and discusses the central issues of appearance, tasks and work assignment, physical interaction structure, and talk and physiognomy.

Understanding what makes people tick via deep explanations than are customarily rendered is a vital contribution of scholarship to the practical world of management.

The evolutionary bases of contemporary behaviours, and cross‐species accounts, may prove useful paradigms for other theorists and empiricists in organizational studies, and could encourage the development of a new field that might be labeled evolutionary organizational behaviour.

Numerous past articles, many of which consist of idealised prescriptions for success or the occasional case study or practitioner's contribution, have commented on the role of hospital clinician‐managers. Prior work is circumscribed, however, in that it tends to be normative and a priori (how clinician‐managers in principle should manage) rather than descriptive and a posteriori (how clinician‐managers in situ do manage). In addition, it is apparent that an empirically‐grounded, testable model is lacking for the way clinician‐managers work. This paper sets out to balance past normative‐prescriptive accounts with a descriptive‐analytic one, and presents an empirically‐based conceptual model of the behavioural routines of hospital clinician‐managers. The model, based on multiple studies of clinician‐managers' activities, conjectures five major modes of operating and four primary and five secondary pursuits. The paper advances accounts of how clinician‐management work is conducted and the time frames for it, and hypothesises about clinician‐managers' relationships, and how power and control is experienced and exercised. It also briefly discusses some of the implications of both the research program and the findings. However, following Popper, researchers ought to invite attempts to improve rigor through a systematic critique of their findings. Critical analysis of this work under falsification processes is consequently welcomed.

The purpose of this paper is to address four questions: what are the drawbacks of an over reliance on the objectivist tradition in culture in international business (CIB) scholarship? Is a shift from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic cultural research justified? What explains scholars’ hesitation in engaging in multi-paradigmatic studies? What arguments can we offer to convince them otherwise?

Informed by the critical perspective, this paper encourages a shift from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic cultural studies. Guided by an emancipatory interest, and treating the field of culture studies as a complex system, this paper offers an integrative complexity (IC) based argument in favor of multi-paradigmatic studies. It argues that multi-paradigmatic studies allow scholars to employ higher IC than mono-paradigmatic studies, resulting in more innovative research outputs.

While mono-paradigmatic studies can achieve either predictability of output or in-depth understanding of cultural phenomena, multi-paradigmatic studies are capable of attaining both. The authors illustrate this through the example of a recent multi-paradigmatic study.

This paper does not offer insights for operationalizing multi-paradigmatic research, nor does it address factors other than IC that may impede scholars from engaging in such studies.

Shifting from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic studies will enable scholars to address questions hitherto left unaddressed in CIB literature, facilitate a better understanding of new organizational forms, and redress the power disequilibrium between different paradigmatic schools. Implications are also offered for the training of cultural researchers in business schools.

This paper is the first of its kind to relate IC to merits of multi-paradigmatic cultural studies.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the methodological self‐understanding of the emerging field of organizational space and architecture by employing concepts and frameworks from multi‐paradigm and mixed methods research.

The paper presents a methodological re‐reading of a recent research process that analyzed the spatial and architectural dynamics in a Finnish university organization.

While the analysis of architectural meanings is often grounded in researcher‐participants auto‐ethnographic experiences, triangulating personal insights with other methods is important for the validity and richness of the subsequent description of spatial dynamics and its outcomes. Especially, the incorporation of architectural visions and representations into the analysis is argued to enhance our understanding of the emergence of particular social‐material collectives.

Although there is a steady stream of empirical studies on the meanings of organizational space and architecture, rigorous accounts of the methodological challenges of spatial analyses have so far been scarce. This paper aims to partially fill this gap.