Search results

Identifies the significant role of conceptual research methods in theory building and contrasts it with the theory‐testing research currently prevalent in operations management. The research stages of description, explanation and testing are used to distinguish between theory building and theory testing. Short‐circuiting any one of these stages results in dysfunctional research activities which produce war stories, black boxes, or ivory‐tower prescriptions. Defines some terms relevant to conceptual research methods and describes different conceptual classification schemes. Finally, discusses the differences between conceptual models, frameworks, and theories and illustrates each method with examples from the literature.

Many methodology sources suggest that a researcher should in advance frame the research project and make a choice among these options and should subsequently stick to his or her frame and choice. In this article a different, more natural, research trajectory design is presented which is labelled the “iterative theory‐building process”. The main feature of this approach is that research questions may be changed over time based on material collected and that research strategies, data collection and analysis methods and tactics should fit the (changing) research questions and process phases. The rationale of this “iterative theory‐building process” is explained and the strategies that can be chosen from the research trajectory design are further discussed.

The objective of this article is to describe processes of substantiations and contributions across contexts and over time through theory building towards theory in business research.

The article provides a seed for discussion, debate and consideration regarding scholarly substantiations and contributions through theory building towards business theory.

The importance of cumulative processes in terms of substantiations and contributions in business research should not be neglected, but its logic and value is currently argued to be often underestimated or ignored.

Sound theory requires sound foundations based upon processes of substantiations and contributions. It is essential that the processes of substantiations and contributions are cumulative and parallel through theory building towards theory.

An important lesson learned is that an original study should not be seen as providing a genuine substantiation and making a solid contribution to business theory until it has been successfully replicated and validated across contexts and over time.

The author concludes that current practices of substantiations and contributions through theory building towards theory are insufficient and contain fatal flaws potentially undermining the well‐being of business research and the perception of business theory being seen as a solid and credible management discipline among other academic disciplines in the worldwide research community.

The purpose of this paper is to describe potential flaws and pitfalls in the contemporary process of testing the theory of a research model in business research through the use of covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM).

This paper offers a foundation for discussion, debate and questioning regarding the contemporary process of testing the theory of a research model in business research through CB-SEM.

The contemporary process to test theory of a research model through CB-SEM in business research lacks to a large extent a stepwise and iterative process of an accumulation of knowledge to build sound and rigorous business theory that is both reliable and valid over time as well as across contexts.

This paper provides an awakening toward further debate and discussion on the relevance and suitability of the contemporary process to test the theory of a research model through CB-SEM in business research – is it science, quasi-science or just nonsense?

The primary implication of this paper is that its content will challenge most readers ' preconceptions of the topic and stimulate debate. Subsequently, it is the author’s hope that the content is thought-provoking and counterintuitive. Some scholars might reject the content, while others may find it valuable.

The paper intends to provide counterintuitive thoughts regarding the contemporary process of testing the theory of a research model in business research through the use of CB-SEM. CB-SEM offers potentially valuable merits in business research settings, if applied and performed properly.

The purpose of this article is to review the importance of theory in social enterprise research.

The article presents and relates previous work on theory borrowing, theory extension and theory generation to social enterprise research.

Theoretical embeddeness and social relevance are important for the legitimacy of social enterprise research.

Social enterprise research offers a promising array of opportunities for theory extension and development.

In the social sciences, practical relevance is important for good theory development. Better theories have the potential to improve practice.

The article applies previous research on theory borrowing, extension and development to the context of social enterprise research.

The purpose of this paper is to explore enhancing theory development in service research and provide an overview of the five essays on theorizing initiated by the International Network for Service Research workshop, held at Karlstad, Sweden in September 2014.

A collaborative theorizing process which was initiated at the Karlstad, Sweden workshop.

Six (five from the event and the introduction) original and provocative essays that explore different aspects of theorizing in service research.

Exploring how a collaborative approach to research can be used.

Operations and supply chain management (OSCM) is a theoretically and philosophically fragmented field. Researchers must consider how they use theory and explain empirical phenomena. This paper aims to use critical realism to introduce more coherence into this fragmented field.

This paper draws on existing critical realism and abduction literature and this study uses a research process from two PhD projects to investigate critical realism’s role in OSCM research. This paper uses a narrative approach to collect data over a long timeframe, capturing data not commonly used in OSCM research.

Research that struggles to bridge the gap between theory and data benefits from critical realism, which provides a philosophy and associated methods to identify a suitable theory and guide researchers when they encounter obstacles. While clear steps often outline established methods, researchers are sometimes unable to identify when their research process has reached an obstacle. This paper argues that such obstacles can be treated as “crossroads” offering new research opportunities when correctly evaluated and addressed.

Importantly, researchers should be able to reflect upon their own research processes, enabling a better understanding of these processes and the discovery of new research directions. Researchers can use critical realism, abduction and systematic combining to bridge the divide between theory and data in OSCM.

This paper contributes to the field’s discussion regarding the roles of critical realism and abduction, synthesizing multiple academic sources, highlighting critical realism’s importance and providing a novel means of addressing difficulties in navigating an eclectic research area. This paper offers a philosophical alternate to the field, which is often instead considered from a positivistic standpoint. The paper is valuable to researchers in the OSCM field, who can use the research to improve their selection of data and theories, as well as their understanding of their own research processes.

This paper aims to illustrate why an understanding of how levels of analysis interact is an essential part of multilevel research in the field of international business (IB). Using research on strategy implementation (SI) in multinational corporations (MNCs) as an example, this paper develops a taxonomy and research agenda that demonstrates the key role critical scholars can play in advancing multilevel theorization.

Drawing on the assumptions of methodological collectivism and individualism, the paper presents a four-step framework: defining the theoretical boundaries of the selected subject; juxtaposing theoretical arguments with empirical work; identifying single- and multi-level theories; and developing a research agenda.

Research on SI in MNCs has been dominated by one type of theorizing that focuses on the designs of organizational systems or the power of institutions. Multilevel theorization grounded in methodological individualism would offer new knowledge by including the views of under-represented stakeholders, questioning the justice of established systems and overall implications of MNC operations.

The proposed four-step framework encourages scholars to adopt a systematic approach to multilevel theorizing and draw upon the untapped potential of IB theories.

The paper contributes to the IB field by introducing an approach to assessing IB research from a multilevel theorizing perspective. The actionable research agenda on SI and the taxonomy of SI research can assist scholars in making aligned choices on study design and envisioning research questions that yield meaningful contributions to theory and practice.

The practice of theory borrowing from other research fields is common in interdisciplinary and applied research. Nevertheless, educational administration researchers seldom discuss this phenomenon and its complexities in depth.

This essay provides an overview of what has been written about the practice of theory borrowing.

After presenting the criticism on misusing theory borrowing, it outlines several recommendations to improve theory borrowing in education administration research by domesticating it through conceptual blending.

The purpose of this essay is to motivate educational administration scholars to reflect on the practice of theory borrowing. The guidelines offered here for promoting conceptual blending serve as a middle ground for mitigating a key problem of theory borrowing.

On many occasions, organizational science research has been referred to as fragmented and disjointed, resulting in a literature that is, in the opinion of many, difficult to navigate and comprehend. One potential explanation is that scholars have failed to comprehend that organizations are complex and intricate systems. In order to move us past this morass, we recommend that researchers extend beyond traditional rational, mechanistic, and variable-centered approaches to research and integrate a more advantageous pattern-oriented approach within their research program. Pattern-oriented methods approximate real-life phenomena by adopting a holistic, integrative approach to research wherein individual- and organizational-systems are viewed as non-decomposable organized wholes. We argue that the pattern-oriented approach has the potential to overcome a number of breakdowns faced by alternate approaches, while offering a novel and more representative lens from which to view organizational- and HRM-related issues. The proposed incorporation of the pattern-oriented approach is framed within a review and evaluation of current approaches to organizational research and is supplemented with a discussion of methodological and theoretical implications as well as potential applications of the pattern-oriented approach.