Search results

Recent discussions of the service‐dominant logic (S‐D logic) and the creation of a multidisciplinary service science highlight the need for a paradigmatic discussion that provides directions for ongoing service research. This article aims to examine different epistemological foundations and proposes a framework to describe and better understand the development and future of service research.

Using the proposed framework, an assessment of 60 selected award‐winning and most cited articles is categorized using the paradigmatic framework.

Four paradigms are found to be prominent in service research: positivistic, hermeneutic, dialogic, and monologic. The positivistic option has been the dominant paradigm employed by service scholars, suggesting service scholars need to apply the three alternative paradigms more as a means to enrich and extend the service research discipline.

There is a need to discuss the fundamental beliefs and worldviews (ontological and epistemological positions) guiding service research. Paradigms are critical determinants and drivers of good research.

A new framework for analyzing paradigmatic foundations in service research and directions for the future design of service research studies is proposed. The suggested framework could inspire scholars to reflect on their ontological and epistemological foundations and provide paradigmatic guidance within service research. This provides a basis for continuous expansion of the service research field.

This paper aims to explore the root cause of growing gap in Islamic moral ideals and practices by examining paradigmatic foundation and moral axioms of Islamic business ethics. It compares and contrasts Tawhidi and secular paradigms in terms of their moral axioms and ethical mandates.

The paper first presents the paradigmatic foundation of Islamic ethics, namely, ihsan ethics. Second, it compares Tawhidi paradigm of Islam with secular paradigm in respect to their ontological, axiological, anthropological and teleological differences. Third, it links to Islamic moral axioms to the relevant paradigmatic pillars. Fourth, it defines “ihsan ethics” based on Tawhidi paradigm and moral axioms. Finally, it sheds some light on the gap between moral ideals and realities through the theory of ihsan ethics.

The paper attempts to provide strong conceptual and theoretical tools to understand ethical problems in the Muslim societies. The paper makes a strong case that Muslim minds shall be de-secularized to perceive the reality, truth and telos within Tawhidi worldview. As Muslims reach the level of ihsan by perceiving transcendental reality, they are likely to practice what they preach.

The paper proposes “ihsan ethics” based on Tawhidi worldview and Islamic moral axioms.

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 purpose of this paper is to propose a framework (pragmatic constructivism) for a new paradigm for accounting practice. The paradigmatic base of practice is an important element in explaining, understanding, justifying and defending practice.

The paper is designed to argue the case for the use of pragmatic constructivism as a basis for the development of a paradigmatic foundation of accounting practice. To achieve this, pragmatic constructivism is explained and its application to accounting is illustrated and contrasted with the traditional paradigm of realism.

The analysis shows how the use of a less reductionist paradigm than realism can assist accountants both in the creation of a rationale and a defence for practice.

The analysis is exploratory in the sense that a new paradigmatic framework is outlined and used to illustrate its potential to develop a paradigm for practice. The creation of a full practice paradigm for accounting is beyond the scope of one paper. Hence this analysis should be viewed as only a first step towards developing a paradigm of accounting practice.

The proposal of pragmatic constructivism for this purpose is novel to the accounting literature. The value of its application lies in its potential to explain and defend accounting practice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the paper entitled “Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice” by Nørreklit, Nørreklit and Mitchell as a way to open a debate about whether a “paradigm of accounting practice” exists and, if so, the nature of the methodological approach that would be needed to discover its nature.

The paper employs a critical, reflective discursive analysis.

The main finding is that there is a confusion in the paper by Nørreklit et al. about the nature of a “paradigm of accounting practice”, which, if it exists, should be a “skeletal theory” (Laughlin), rather than a methodology. The conclusion of the commentary is that a “paradigm of accounting practice”, using this understanding, might exist, but that Nørreklit et al.'s argument for the use of “pragmatic constructivism”, as a methodology for its discovery, is open to question.

The implication of the argument of this commentary is that the search for “paradigm of accounting practice” is important and should be pursued but the choice of an appropriate methodology for this discovery still needs further consideration.

Nørreklit et al., and this commentary, re‐energise an important debate and concern about paradigms in accounting that was present in the literature in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The search for a “paradigm of accounting practice” and how best it can be discovered is an important consideration for the future development of accounting thought.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a paradigmatic foundation for educators to prepare students of management accounting for the new demands of the role of trusted business partner in practice.

The paper argues for the use of pragmatic constructivism as a basis for development of a paradigmatic foundation for educating advanced students of management accounting. Furthermore, it contains an empirical insight through a case example of how pragmatic constructivism can be used as a pedagogical tool in different management accounting educational situations.

The analysis shows how pragmatic constructivism can be used as a less reductionist paradigm than realism to tackle the research-teaching-practice deficiencies found in conventional thinking on accounting education. Pragmatic constructivism is shown to provide important methodological and conceptual elements in developing, understanding and guiding the application of management accounting techniques in dynamic business practices. Placing an emphasis on teaching methodological skills relevant for management accountants is shown to have an important impact on students and their ability to act as business partners.

The analysis is exploratory in the sense that a new paradigmatic framework for educating students of management accounting to be business partners is outlined and illustrated through its implementation in a specific master’s degree programme. However, this analysis should be viewed as only a first step towards developing pragmatic constructivism as a paradigmatic foundation for teaching management accounting as a basis for a business partner role.

The proposed use of research on pragmatic constructivism as a basis for management accounting education to support a future business partner role is novel in the literature on management accounting. The value of its application lies in its potential to create successful utilisation of the practices of management accounting.

This paper aims to address a dilemma raised in the accounting literature on how managers of creative practices can produce and use accounting measurements that support employees’ self-determination to create whilst also building trust in them to work for the interests of the organisation.

Using pragmatic constructivism as a paradigmatic setting, the paper develops a learning method of trust building as a way for organisations to produce and use accounting measurements. Empirical analysis of the European Capital of Culture Aarhus 2017 demonstrates the method in action.

The study displays a learning method of trust building as an effective way for organisations to account for their creative practices without intruding on the creative process of the people involved. The method involves proactive judgement and pragmatic observation of the trustworthiness of the actors’ language games, construction of quality in the conceptual structures of management narratives and measurement models, and learning that narrows the gap between the actors’ proactive judgement and the pragmatic observation of trustworthiness. Through such processes, including principles of truth, dialogical interactions, ongoing reflections and co-authorship, trust can be built in self-determining, creative actors to drive intentional results.

The learning method of trust building extends the literature on trust building and on knowledge processes of performance measurement of actors in creative practices.

This is the first attempt in the accounting literature to develop a learning method of trust building.

The aim of this commentary is to encourage service researchers to reflect on the state of the field as it pertains to the academia–industry intersection. The author puts forth a call to action to continue the work of the field’s founders in developing the foundations of the field and to carry the models and frameworks of the field deeper into industry practice.

Personal reflections and in-depth interviews.

The services discipline is based on foundational theories, models and frameworks developed, in part, as a response to needs expressed by industry. The development of these frameworks has not progressed to the level and format needed by industry, and the field is increasingly operating in silos. Resultantly, the services marketing domain has not developed its foundations to the level of depth needed to answer the call for “assistance” made by Shostack (1977).

The author encourages researchers to build a next set of paradigmatic foundations that broaden the field as a truly interdisciplinary endeavor and deepen its impact in industry. To accomplish these goals, it will be necessary to question original theoretical frameworks and show situations in which they require modification.

This work suggests that researchers may be overemphasizing the silo aspects of the field and underestimating the lack of completeness of the service science field.