Search results

The use of dialectics and social construction theory can help expose rationalized institutional myths used to create useable knowledge. This discussion presents a popular technique, advocated and used among public officials when establishing pay scales, called a salary survey. Salary surveys appear rational because they use logical positivist (quantitative) methods to illustrate a “truth” that is actually “symbolic.” This process is institutionalized when pay discussions and decisions are required to proceed on the basis of salary surveys. Salary surveys take on the role of myth when they become accepted by officials as an “objective reality” without a thorough examination of the biases and assumptions. This study uses the ritual, validity, reality dialectic to illustrate how administrators construct and shape reality through social interaction. Through this dialectic, some officials may want to question their acceptance of salary survey practices and consider the recommendations offered in this article.

Aims to consider what the best metaphor or set of metaphors might be in the organizational change process.

A conceptual discussion and approach are taken.

Metaphors have proven to be highly effective aids to understanding the circumstances, clarifying the direction and resolving the problems of organizational change. However, despite their efficacy, there is much debate over what the best metaphor or set of metaphors might be. This paper argues that this uncertainty is resolved by employing Veblen's metaphor of “endogenous evolution”, and that this claim is supported by current studies of organizational change.

The paper is of value to management professionals in helping to develop skills for facing the onset of, and consequences of, the processes of organizational change.

The purpose of this paper is to refine an agenda concerning the theory–praxis gap to develop a foundation for a research tradition.

The paper synthesizes and builds on the suggestions in commentary articles by Kohli (2017), Leeflang (2017) and Möller (2017).

The authors develop a research agenda consisting of the following issues: the need for a systemic view of business practice; the need for innovative and meaningful theoretical understanding; the need to identify conditions and approaches for collaborative theorizing; to further define and instruct the abductive approach; and to explore pragmatic realism to ensure both practical outcomes and truthful theories.

These five issues are a step towards developing a theory–praxis research tradition.

The aim of the paper is to address the widening theory-praxis gap in marketing. The authors propose that one viable solution to this challenge is involving practitioners in research processes as active, reflective and empowered participants. Most extant discussions addressing the inclusion of managers as partners in theorizing restrain themselves to an “if” question, arguing whether or not it is possible to create sufficiently rigorous knowledge in collaboration with practitioners. This leaves the “how” question unanswered, i.e. how should such gap-bridging research be conducted in practice.

Based on a literature review of collaborative theorizing processes, the authors develop a conceptual framework highlighting the main research design decisions when theorizing with managers. The use of the framework is illustrated with four research program examples.

Most accounts of theorizing with managers use – explicitly or implicitly – abduction as the main mode of inference. In addition to this philosophical commonality, our literature review identified 12 themes that should be considered when designing collaborative research processes. The four illustrative examples indicate that theorizing with managers is an effective way of producing and socializing both academically sound and managerially relevant knowledge. On the other hand, collaborative theorizing processes are time-consuming and studies using abductive reasoning may be more challenging to publish in top-tier journals.

This paper makes two contributions. First, the authors go beyond the extensive academic literature which provides a plethora of explanations and ideas for potential remedies for bridging the theory-praxis gap by offering a detailed description how one particular solution, theorizing with managers, unfolds in practice. Second, the authors ground collaborative theorizing processes in the philosophy of science and put abduction forward as a common nominator for such studies.

This paper aims to present a commentary and reflection on Nenonen et al.’s paper on theorizing with managers.

The paper is a conceptual reflection.

The author finds much to agree with Nenonen et al.’s work, but finds some aspects where greater breadth could be added to further strengthen it. The author further suggest that the alleged gap should be critically examined.

This paper extends Nenonen et al. by proposing a broader framework for viewing the relevance and implementability of academic marketing research.

Management practice is progressing at unprecedented pace and often academia is lagging behind, if not totally irrelevant, both in management research and in education. This paper strives to show how principles of pragmatism and action research are likely to increase the relevance of management research and education.

A reflection based on a broad review of ontological and epistemological issues leads to a call for philosophical re‐foundation of management academia.

Pragmatism defines truth seeking as reducing doubt, and therefore necessarily includes the notion of a client for the research effort. Action research is a practical embodiment of this approach and deserves a more prominent role.

The research limitations and implications are inherent in the chosen methodology/approach: a viewpoint that hopefully stimulates others.

This paper makes concrete suggestions as to how to bring research and education closer to the client to permit cross‐fertilization and improve problem‐solving processes.

The paper offers a meta‐synthesis of ontological and epistemological approaches to the theory‐praxis gap. It outlines the imminent pertinence of pragmatism as a philosophy and as a practice of management science and relates pragmatism to theory of action, purporting pragmatist paradigms of management knowledge socialization.

This study aims to explore what characteristics contribute to the definition of relevance in business-to-business (B2B) marketing research and how/why different strands of B2B marketing maintain or lose their relevance.

This study is conceptual. It adopts a performative-phenomenal standpoint for B2B marketing research and approaches relevance through the concept of episteme, which is considered pivotal for understanding this phenomenon.

This study proposes four axioms that define the characteristics of relevance in B2B marketing research and discusses their implications for scholars and practitioners. Consequently, an action plan for revitalizing B2B marketing research is developed, comprising learning and temporal dimensions, resulting in nine different relevance types.

The central argument put forward in this study is that different research strands of B2B marketing have deeply rooted epistemic underpinnings that influence their interpretation of relevance. Consequently, fostering dialogue between practitioners and scholars is considered necessary to sustain relevance in B2B marketing research. B2B scholars are urged to think beyond their subspecialized silos and acknowledge how the business environment and the various strands of B2B marketing congruently shape B2B marketing relevance, while also embracing research methods that bring them closer to business practice.

Marketing practitioners and academics continue to drift apart. This study puts forward three recommendations to bring marketing academics and practitioners closer together.

The study contributes to the B2B marketing literature by grappling with the theory-praxis gap and critically exploring what constitutes relevance in B2B marketing research.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on Nenonen et al.’s paper on theorizing with managers. This paper discusses differences between marketing science and marketing practice and gives suggestions to reduce the theory–praxis gap. It gives examples of quantitative studies that have been performed with practioners and use the choices proposed by Nenonen et al. to draw conclusions.

This paper is based on personal experience of the author, which is supported by a substantial number of empirical studies.

Cooperation with marketing managers/decision-makers is most successful when the initiator is the practitioner. Public policy and litigation are the most promising areas for cooperation. It is difficult to publish the outcomes of these “joint” studies in top journals.

This study extends and continues the results of the study by Nenonen et al.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how US cities are communicating a sustainability narrative. Based on an analysis, cities are using a sustainability narrative focusing on environmental sustainability and consumption. Critical theory is introduced as a means to imagine alternative narratives.

Exploratory in nature, this study relied on qualitative media analysis to analyze documents and images gathered from 22 US city websites. Critical theory is then introduced to provide a conceptual way forward from the status quo narrative form.

Cities are utilizing environmental narratives largely, rather than including social and economic interests inherent within holistic sustainability practices. Moreover, cities are promoting sustainability as consumption, a practice that is inherently not sustainable. Critical theory explains that marketers are relying on the “status quo” when it comes to crafting a sustainability narrative.

Destination marketing managers can think outside of given narratives to create their own sustainability stories that might help the place achieve a competitive advantage.

Knowledge into sustainability marketing practices is extended by revealing a consumption narrative and utilizing critical theory to move beyond this status quo.

For service research to develop as an applied social science there is the need to refresh the process of theorizing so it focuses not only on increasing new academic knowledge but also on knowledge that is managerially relevant. This paper aims to provide guidelines to achieve this.

A theorizing process that integrates general theoretic perspectives and contextual research to develop midrange theory is developed. The process is based on the philosophical foundations of pragmatism and abductive reasoning, which has the origins in the 1950s when the management sciences were being established.

A recent research stream that develops midrange theory about customer and actor engagement is used to illustrate the theorizing process.

Practicing managers, customers and other stakeholders in a service system use theory, so there is a need to focus on how theory is used in specific service contexts and how this research leads to academic knowledge that is managerially relevant. Thus, as applied social science, service research needs to explicitly focus on bridging the theory–praxis gap with midrange theory by incorporating a general theoretic perspective and contextual research.

The contribution comes from providing a broader framework to guide the theorizing process that integrates general theoretic perspectives and applied research to develop midrange theory. While general theories operate at the most abstract level of conceptualization, midrange theories are context-specific and applied theory (theories-in-use) is embedded in empirical research.