Search results

Research on cultural entrepreneurship has explored the role of language in making and giving sense to novel ventures and market categories and in legitimating them. We analyze how an emerging de novo market category, quantum computing, is constructed through the use of analogies and metaphors. Through a multimodal analysis of interview and newspaper data, we find that in addition to using analogies and metaphors to highlight familiarity, actors also use such tropes to expound the weirdness of the new category, thus marking it as profoundly different and novel. Such tropes have a dual function; they draw the boundaries between science and laypeople but also arouse awe and curiosity among the audiences. Our study thus casts light on the cultural work during de novo category emergence.

We investigate how Salesforce’s key people used analogies and metaphors during the deployment of their (then) radical business model innovation. Our analysis shows how Salesforce’s entrepreneurial team skillfully used a mix of analogies and metaphors to communicate its innovations and differentiate the company from its competitors. We also show how business model innovators can weave together analogies and metaphors to create distinct meta-narratives that elicited strong emotions and helped construct a memorable organizational identity that galvanized stakeholders around the firm’s ecosystem appeal. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for business model and cognition research.

Over the past 30 years, increasing use of technology has created a global business environment leading to the changed role of a professional accountant. In response, accounting organizations and employers have demanded professionals who are creative and innovative, with strong critical thinking and problem-solving skills, yet accounting firms and prior research continue to identify creativity as one of the most important yet most lacking traits of their newly hired employees. This study experimentally examines whether accounting students are indeed less creative than other students, a potential cause for differences in creativity, and a potential intervention to enhance creativity. Our results indicate that, on average, accounting students are not less creative than other students, but rather when performing an accounting task, they are initially less creative, suggesting that the accounting context may be partially contributing to the perceived lack of creativity. However, providing accounting students with process-oriented feedback significantly improves their future creativity, as differences between accounting and non-accounting students are eliminated. The authors contribute to the accounting and creativity literature and discuss implications for accounting education and the profession.

This study aims to extend the current literature on International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) teaching by examining the argument by Hodgdon et al. (2013) that arranging accounting prescriptions into the level of concept, principle and rules is helpful to students in comprehending the complex set of accounting standards. Besides, the study aims to attest the argument that analogy is a useful tool in teaching, especially when dealing with complex knowledge or concepts.

The study used a 3 × 2 between-subjects design, which includes the independent variables of the three-step teaching method (concept-only, concept + principle and concept + principle + rules) and the presence or absence of analogy.

The findings support Hodgdon et al. (2013). However, the combination of Hodgdon et al.’s (2013) technique with analogy resulted in only better-perceived comprehension under the concept-only condition.

There are limitations to the use of analogy as an instructional tool. The reasoning behind an analogy is that it is produced from different fields in which the target and source topics have only some similarity in structure or function. This suggests a limited capacity in which the source topic can be used to fully explain a targeted topic, and thus caution needs to be exercised in the use of analogy as a teaching tool. Additionally, this study uses a perceived understanding of control in IFRS 15. While perceived understanding may likely result in actual comprehension, there is a possibility that this may not be the case. Finally, this study did not consider about how rule comprehensiveness is affected.

The findings of this study provide a useful combination of teaching tools to educators on how to deliver technical business subjects such as accounting effectively.

This paper aims to answer the call by Hodgdon et al. (2013) to verify the effectiveness of teaching IFRS via the three-step approach. In addition, this study extends the literature by examining whether an analogy could be used with the three-step approach to effectively improve students’ understanding of IFRS.

By using two cognitive tools, metaphors and analogies, structural concepts can be made more observable and touchable for architects. These tools can help architects and designers to physically demonstrate structural concepts for better understanding. Since familiarity with the structural concepts is imperative for architects, it is important to determine the extent in which architects sharpen and solidify their understanding of structural concept using two very valuable cognitive tools, metaphors and analogies. Although in recent years, the number of studies focusing on the usage of metaphor and analogy was on the rise, very few works have included views and opinions of correspondent users in the architectural domain. Furthermore, having both metaphor and analogy under one investigation could help the researcher to see which one, metaphor or analogy, professional architects prefer to use more and which one of them architects use in various stages in their design process. In this regard, purposive sampling was applied to collect the data from ten professional Iranian architects who had the experience of working in this domain for more than 10 years. The participants of this study went through a semi-structured interview and their reports were analysed qualitatively. The findings reveal that while designing, Iranian professional architects do not have any preferences because they can equally apply both metaphors and analogies, but when dealing with their students in academic setting, using metaphor as a cognitive tool can lead to better results. Furthermore, Iranian architects use metaphor more in the initial stages of the architectural design process because according to them this physiognomic perception enhance understanding of a design situation and stimulate creative solutions to the problem at hand. Conversely, analogy is mainly used in the concept generation phase.

This study reviews the construct of analogy as an individual communication mode, examining its relationship with cross-understanding in knowledge-diverse teams. The authors theorize that analogy use enhances team information processing beyond mere communication frequency through bridging knowledge differences across team members. The authors propose that analogies will have a direct relationship to knowledge application, and an indirect effect via cross-understanding. However, communication frequency will have only an indirect effect on knowledge application through cross-understanding.

The authors sampled a 49-member team with 14 subteams, yielding 146 usable dyadic relationships. Two mediation models were estimated while using linear mixed-effect models in SPSS.

The results confirm the importance of analogies and cross-understanding in teams, generally supporting the hypotheses. Mere communication frequency was not related to knowledge application, indicating that “how you say it” may be more important than how often a team member speaks.

This research explored these constructs through a three-week project in a sample of graduate students working with a real-world client. Future research could explore the validity of this model in other organizational settings and test the analogy construct on the team level.

The effectiveness of team member communication should be measured not only as frequency but also in terms of analogies to transmit meaning.

This paper contributes to an understanding of teams as information processors by building empirical support for the utility of analogical communication in design teams, establishing the relationship of analogies to cross-understanding and knowledge application.

As an alternative to straight rhetorical questions, questions using analogies that invite the reader to think about the frame of reference to answer the target have been used in advertising to persuade. This paper aims to investigate consumer responses to the use of analogical questions in ads for incrementally new products and the important variables moderating those responses.

Four between-subjects experiments examined how product evaluations in response to analogical questions differ from non-analogical variants as a function of consumers’ persuasion awareness (Studies 1 and 2) and also tested if the effectiveness of an analogical question among potential consumers who are more aware of persuasion attempts might be enhanced only when it is proposed with a strong rather than a weak frame of reference (Study 3), and when the frame of reference and the target share underlying similarities (Study 4).

Analogical questions are more persuasive than non-analogical variants for participants who are more aware of persuasion attempts. Inferential fluency mediates the results. Furthermore, the positive impact of analogical questions for participants high in persuasion awareness is diminished when the frame of reference is weak or from a dissimilar domain. The same patterns are not evident for participants who are less aware of persuasion attempts.

Drawing on the concepts of inferential fluency, this study offers an empirically-based view of how the analogical questions in advertising may bias the responses exhibited by individuals who demonstrate either a high or low level of persuasion awareness.

The inclusion of an analogy can lower consumers’ tendency to behave in a defensive manner by facilitating inferences about intended claims that are implicitly stated in a rhetorical question and achieve higher levels of persuasion.

This study contributes to prior study on rhetorical questions within a persuasion communication by adopting inferential fluency as an underlying mechanism for analyzing the impact of analogical questions and individual’s awareness of persuasion.

The purpose of this study is to attempt to analyze how the distance of analogies used during the strategy formulation process is a critical driver used to explain the different scopes of implemented changes.

This study was based on field research using primary data gathered from 70 firms by means of an 83‐item survey. The questions were carefully constructed and answered by top managers according to a four‐point scale. The three hypotheses were analyzed using multiple linear and quadratic regression analysis.

The study defines a new concept of analogy's distance. Firms implement incremental changes when top managers use either short‐ or long‐distance analogies within the strategic formulation process, whereas radical changes are implemented when top managers apply medium‐distance analogies.

Even though the response rate was higher than recommended by specialists (21.5 percent), the sample was small, and also, more valid and reliable measures of different analogical distances and scopes of change are needed. The findings of this study allow us to make theoretical extensions to the cognitive theory of the strategy formulation process, strategic renewal theory, knowledge‐based view of the firm, storytelling theory of organizations, and the upper echelon theory.

Scholars from various disciplines and practitioners agree that analogies are a useful tool for many organizational matters (i.e. design strategy, renewal strategy, conflict management, understanding complex environments, facilitating communications, creating the need for change, and so on). If the firm's upper managers are familiar with external business models, they may use those as analogies in order to obtain strategic recommendations and advice which can be used to design an effective strategy, understand complex management issues, create the need for change, exploit new opportunities to achieve competitive advantages, and so on. Thus, managers have an advantage when they have accumulated a wealth of knowledge about other business models along with life experiences that may come from their past job experiences, participation in development programs with case‐oriented methodology, and being part of business workshops and congress. This information could be used as analogies for undertaking organizational changes to meet daily challenges faced by the firm.

The current literature does not address the different distances of analogies and how they are related to the magnitude of organizational changes. This study emphasizes the importance of the type of analogy being used as a tool to build the firm's business model. The concept of analogical distance has not been discussed in management literature.

The study described in this article aimed to gather insights into what people think when they search the Internet for information. The premise is that people relate to information services and systems metaphorically. In other words, they identify the system or service as analogous to something perhaps more mundane or commonplace. These are known as wild metaphors. They help to explain the unknown or unfamiliar and help us to learn new things. They arise from our individual beliefs and backgrounds but they are also inevitably influenced by our collective experience of contemporary media characterisations of the Internet. This study relates the analogies that academics in Australia report for the Internet with the satisfaction that they derive from information seeking on the network. It provides some insight into how academics in Australia perceive the Internet when they use it to search for information.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of situations where managers analogise, and when they change to a different decision model; examine how the analogies are evoked, what characteristics they have and how they are used, and add to the understanding through taking a qualitative approach.

This is an illustrative case study of a new market entry attempt by a medium‐sized manufacturing firm based on interviews and analytical dialogues with management team members.

The paper finds that decision makers analogise when cause/effect‐relationships are unclear, and change decision models when the analogy has helped to formulate a theory of the nature of the problem or a recipe for handling the situation. They evoke analogies by automatic recognition, using internal and external sources, for transfer within and between domains. The use of analogy occurs in problem setting, problem solving, action and sensemaking modes.

Misunderstandings can occur in dialogue between researchers and decision makers. Future interpretive research should consider participant observation and conceptual modelling. A computational study might incorporate situational differences, roles, and the issues identified in this study.

Awareness of the prevalence of analogy in decision making can help practitioners critically evaluate the analogies used and consider multiple perspectives on problematic situations.

The paper adds to the literature by taking a qualitative approach to analogising. The findings offer some support to prior research using laboratory and analytical approaches, while suggesting reconsiderations and offering new insights.