Search results

Philosophers and historians of science, along with scientists themselves, have long been interested in the problem of theory succession: “How does one theory supersede another?” Concern with this general topic has led to the development of two major recent theories regarding the issue. These theories of theory succession have emerged principally from reflection on physics. In the eyes of most scientists, this is probably appropriate, since physics seems to offer (at least to most observers) science in its purest form.

Knowledge competencies and (R&D) activities are one of the most important sources of innovation and have been widely discussed in the literature. In comparison, the role of the competitive environment for the innovation activities of firms is still open to debate and has not been fully understood yet. Therefore, this paper intends to provide new evidence on the interaction between knowledge competencies and R&D activities of firms on the one side and their competitiveness in the market environment on the other. In particular, the moderating function of market competition is explored. In this respect, the analysis covers the main innovation types as well as both sectors, manufacturing and services.

The empirical analysis is based on a three years panel dataset of German manufacturing and service firms obtained from Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP) and Community Innovation Surveys (CISs: 2011, 2013 and 2015). For the estimation, a binary instrumental variable treatment model with Heckman selection method is used. Also, it provides a suitable approach to estimating the binary variables in order to cope with endogeneity concerns.

The estimation results show that R&D activities and knowledge competencies are positively related to innovation activities of different types conditioned on firms' specific perception of their competitive environment, in terms of outdated products/services as well as strong competition from abroad. Most importantly, the results from the moderation estimation reveal that there is a significant difference between the manufacturing and service sector. Service firms engage more in internal R&D activities on generating product innovations while the manufacturing firms conduct more external R&D on specific types of innovation. Further, the authors find that strong competition from abroad positively and significantly reinforces the effect of knowledge competencies on innovation activities for more types in services than in manufacturing. In contrast, outdated products and services tend to decline the effect of knowledge competencies for some innovation types in both sectors. The authors also observe a positive and significant reinforcement effect on knowledge competencies. However, it is found more beneficial for service firms since they can employ more innovation strategies.

The focus of the study is mainly on the impact of firms' competitive environment on innovation activities in various types through its interaction with knowledge competencies and R&D activities, across manufacturing and service firms.

Empirical research in accounting is of considerable importance to the academic community yet it is surprising to note that it is only since the early 1970s that this concern has gained centre stage. Since this time multiple studies have been undertaken from a variety of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. The literature is now replete with empirical studies from perspectives as far apart as the “positivism” of the Rochester School to the expanding Foucauldian studies of accounting practice. While this eclecticism is commendable at one level it is also confusing at another. Reduces some of this confusion by bringing an overview and much needed order into this variety highlighting the underlying features of these multiple approaches to accounting research. Points out the need for choices to be made on the perspective to be adopted along three continuums concerning “theory”, “methodology” and “change”. Presents a case for “middle‐range” thinking for empirical research in accounting. While the reader may not necessarily agree with the logic that leads to this perspective it is hoped that the article will demonstrate that no one perspective can provide a complete picture of accounting reality, that choices on perspective have to be, and can be, made and that these choices are, and should be, contestable.

This paper addresses the status of the concept of tradition in social theory. Tradition, precisely defined, should be one of the ways sociologists understand the logic of social action, group identity, and collective memory (Coser 1992; Connerton 1989). To date, however, most social scientists are either dismissive or indiscriminate in their use of the notion. Those who disapprove of the concept tend to “treat tradition as a residual category”’ (Shils 1981 p. 8) or they see it as a type of false consciousness susceptible to manipulation by dominant elites (Hobsbawm 1983). Scholars who embrace tradition, such as Edward Shils, often do so by broadening the concept into something indistinguishable from any cultural inheritance. A nuanced ideal‐type theory is put forth here to enable us to identify and research the particular logic of a social tradition. This theory is extracted from a critical, and highly selective, reconstruction of the history of the concept of tradition.

It is possible to say that an expert in any field of knowledge can be expected to know particular things and techniques. This can be said of a stone mason, a physicist or a midwife. The expertise consists of a notional core of knowledge and skills (i.e. applied knowledge). Such expertise arguably can be found in other experts in the same field, although there will be idiosyncrasies of approach and valuation and quite probably divergencies in what is considered “right” and “wrong”.

Since its origins during the Second World War, the computer industry has grown more rapidly than any other technology in history, and this growth has spawned a wealth of new terms and manners‐of‐speaking to describe computers and the uses to which they can be put. Such terms are often referred to collectively as computerese. The thesis of Barry's entertaining book is that the use of computerese is increasingly being extended to a wealth of other subjects that are often totally unrelated to computing. Barry refers to this use (or abuse) of language as technobabble: the subject matter and the pleasingly tongue‐in‐cheek style can be judged from the introduction, which starts as follows: ‘This paper‐based, productized bookware module is designed to support the robust implementation of a friendly, context‐driven interface between the developer and the end‐user. Did you understand this sentence? If so, you are fluent in technobabble’.

In this article, my goal is to approach Thomas S. Kuhn's account of scientific development from the perspective of institutional theory. Reading it this way, his main work can be seen as a treatise on endogenous change of an institutional order, occurring under circumstances that do not allow the expectation of such discontinuities when deploying common institutional arguments. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, I draw on ideology as the set of beliefs incorporated in the system of orientation Kuhn calls paradigm. From his dense description of paradigm shifts, I deduce five propositions on the role of ideology in radical institutional change. Subsequently, I reconcile these propositions with assumptions of institutional theory and identify, in addition to some convergences, points of divergence, which give impetus to extend conceptions of institutional change.

Evidence‐based medicine (EBM) is a technical and scientific paradigm in clinical practice that has delivered major improvements in the outcome of care in medicine and surgery. However, its value in psychiatry is much less clear. The purpose of the paper is thus to examine its value by subjecting empirical evidence from EBM to a conceptual analysis using the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn.

The authors examine evidence drawn from meta‐analyses of RCTs investigating the efficacy of specific treatments for depression in the form of antidepressant drugs and CBT. This shows that the non‐specific aspects of treatment, the placebo effect and the quality of the therapeutic alliance as seen by the patient, are more important in determining outcome than the specific elements (active drug, specific therapeutic elements of CBT).

Using the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, it is shown that these non‐specific and non‐technical elements are anomalies that indicate that the technological paradigm in the treatment of depression is fundamentally flawed.

Non‐specific elements of mental health care are essential in fostering hope, trust and meaning. They constitute non‐technical factors that are central to the concept of caring, and vital for recovery, and which resonate strongly with the growth of survivor and user‐led systems of support for people who experience distress and madness. As such they pose a major challenge to scientific psychiatry and mental health services based in this. The analysis has major implications for the primacy of the natural sciences in the education and training of those involved in mental health work, and demonstrates the importance of an open debate about the value of the scientific imagination in mental health work.

This paper is important because it supports user‐led self‐defined notions and understandings of recovery, and does so using a philosophical conceptual analysis.

This conceptual analysis is highly original. To the authors' knowledge no one has subjected EBM to a detailed conceptual analysis using the ideas of Thomas Kuhn.