Search results

Acting entrepreneurially in nascent industries is a complex endeavor characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity. Nevertheless, entirely new industries do emerge, often as a direct result of entrepreneurial behavior. We extend and apply discovery and creation approaches to study entrepreneurial behavior during industry emergence by means of qualitative analysis of a film about the personal computer (PC) industry℉s formative years. We find that discovery and creation behavior are fundamentally interrelated and share a common element: bricolage. Moreover, ideological activism is a major component of entrepreneurial behavior in a new industry℉s formative years during both creation and discovery processes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Traditional approaches in qualitative research have adopted one research paradigm linked to an established typology. This paper addresses the unconventional application of two research paradigms in one study. A critical realist approach was used to augment a constructivist analysis of data in a research project seeking to explore the meaning that managers in small to medium enterprises (SMEs) attach to hazard identification, the construction of a hazard profile reflective of the business and its use in assisting to manage hazards within the SME's safety management system framework. Critical realism offered a complementary but essential framework to explore causal mechanisms that led to a deeper understanding of the findings by searching for the processes and causality that lay beneath the social and organizational phenomena observed.

This paper compares the two research paradigms in order to seek junctures and apply them to a research project. Analytical tools applied to each research paradigm within the project are presented, followed by a new multiparadigm conceptual model that integrates critical realism and constructivism, providing an original contribution of knowledge to this field of qualitative research.

The adoption of a multiparadigm model enabled not only the interpretation of social phenomena but also the determination of its causality, enabling a more insightful answering of the research question and leading to a deeper insight into the phenomenology that was studied. This research approach widens the boundaries of qualitative inquiry within organizational research by promoting strategies that challenge more traditionally anchored research typologies, and consequently contributes to better research outcomes.

This study was conducted across four organizations. Similar research is encouraged across a greater number of case studies to validate the process of using a constructivist and critical realist paradigm to gain a more insightful understanding of events and their causality.

The comparison of two research paradigms and consequent provision of a conceptual model (Figure 3) provides potential for the development of further multiparadigm models for research projects within the field of organizational management.

This paper has the potential to promote engagement and collaboration between research scholars seeking to explore the use of multiple research paradigms.

Such an approach has not previously been widely discussed or adopted to examine qualitative data, and advances theory in qualitative research. The application of two research paradigms using such an approach can be applied to businesses in a number of different contexts to gain a more insightful understanding of research participant perspectives, observable events arising from those perspectives and their associated causality.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the constructivist-grounded theory in elite interviews, the methodology used for this research.

The research is about the challenges of the EU rail industry integration in the context of EU integration as seen and told by the involved actors. In particular, the integration process requires leadership in the multi-level governance context of the EU and in the transition from state monopolies to businesses providing services on the integrated market. This provides a potential source of theoretically and practically relevant research questions; and second rigorous grounded research methodologies will bring insight that transcends the currently accepted formal and public statements about the phenomena. The work is situated within social constructivist ontology, enacted through a rigorous grounded theory approach to understanding the current challenges of the industry and seeking more effective developments for the future.

Findings place the concepts of leadership and debt into a relationship that could offer profound understanding of certain social relations and contribute to the growth of theory and practice. These findings are also elaborated in this paper as reflections on the methodological process.

Contribution to theory and practice supports the relevance and rigor of “constructivist-grounded theory in elite interviews” as a methodological approach.

In particular, it supports qualitative research in complex political environments, such as the multi-level governance structures of the EU.

A clearer understanding of leadership within such dynamic contexts can make a substantial contribution to better policy-making in the EU and better outcomes for its citizens.

Further analysis and research of the concepts of leadership and debt and their relationship could offer profound understanding of certain social relations and contribute to the growth of theory and practice.

Joining recent calls to focus our attention on how institutional logics work on the ground, I offer a critique of current studies of institutional logics that often offer a macro and reified depictions thereof. I suggest that to fully appreciate how institutions matter, we need to complement these studies with a research program that is based on a constructivist ontology, ethnographic methods of inquiry, and use of theories of action. I exemplify this emerging research agenda, and discuss its broader analytical and empirical implications.

The purpose of this paper is to show how management control researchers can improve their practical impact through research designs that recognise the many dimensions of organizational reality.

Managerial knowledge in the academy and managerial practice may become detached from one another as practitioners and academic discourses are influenced by different sources of texts and modes of legitimisation. Although this can be a problem in accounting research, management accounting researchers have developed the necessary elements for critical engagement with practice. Identifying a common ontological basis for researchers and practitioners, it is argued that pragmatic constructivism explains how managers construct their reality through integrating logic, facts, values and communication. It is also argued that management consultants have implicitly understood this view of reality in the way that they package their solutions. Academic researchers can replicate the pragmatic constructivist ontology whilst adopting more explicitly theoretical and critical approaches.

The paper proposes the academy can productively imitate some of the knowledge creation of the consultant yet still retain both theoretical rigour and academic values.

The paper presents a research design that can improve the impact of business school research whilst maintaining academic integrity.

Contemporary foresight activities are increasingly dominated by commitment to research methods and an ambition to found a sound theory of futures thinking. Arguably, there has been a general failure to examine and explicate the relationship between theory and method. As Poli; Karlsen & Karlsen; Aaltonen; Inayatullah and others argue, there is both a need and a will to develop a substantial foundation of futures studies that not only goes beyond epistemology, but explicitly tries to establish an ontological rationale for futures research as a post‐positivist scientific activity. Following along this line, the purpose of this paper is to represent a radical constructivist approach to the theory of latents and level of realities that transcends traditional phenomenology.

The paper also gives a brief outline on how Kant meets Latour and constitutes and reproduces two ontological areas, man and nature and argues in favour of a post‐post conception called “universal perspectivism”.

It is found that the foresight community and futurists must revert to some basic ontological assumptions about the future, e.g. as a reflection of human imagination or as a projection of today's situation, particularly the reproduction of the construction of an idea of the human being as such, and its opposite – what it is not.

The consequences for anticipation activities are tremendous: in forward looking activities we reproduce both the distinction between reality in itself and reality for us, or put differently, between appearances and latent. These are then linked to the differentiation between two basic ontological areas throughout all time modalities, nature and society (man). The link between pasts, presents and futures is getting closer.

The decisive antidualism in Bourdieu’s thought permits searching for the complementary traits of his theory of symbolic social system and symbolic interactionism, rather than opposition. The theory of the symbolic social system, which is characterized by the double structure of meanings in the order of social relations and its symbolic representation in the narrower sense, has many convergent points of view with the symbolic interactionists’ perspective, starting with the category of habitus. Conceptual frameworks of structuralist constructivism and symbolic interactionism have one major difference – in Bourdieu’s theory the individual self is not inscribed. There are, however, strong common premises in terms of epistemology, theory of meaning and social ontology. Both epistemologies are antidualistic and relativistic (antiessentialism). Both approaches are based on a common theory of the social origin of meaning (anticognitivism). Both social ontologies are constructivist (social construction of reality). However, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic struggle for control over the commonsense world-view introduces a new, political dimension to interpretive sociology.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate employees' and managers' accounts of interactive learning and what might encourage or inhibit emergent learning.

The approach taken was a constructivist/social constructivist ontology, interpretive epistemology and qualitative methodology, using grounded theory method. Data collection included semi‐structured interview, “complete this sentence” and “scenarios” from 51 respondents: 22 managers and 29 employees in four private sector organisations. As respondents' theories emerged, these informed the next round of data collection, this process named “theoretical sampling”. Managers and employees were asked about perceptions of their own role and the other's roles in learning.

Reciprocity and participative learning involving managers and employees emerged. There was dynamism to the data and evidence of both Billett's notion of affordances and Stacey's patterns of local interactions. Employees encouraged learning through peer discussions, and motivation/personal initiative. Managers encouraged learning through have a go coaching, formal training opportunities and working with company structure and resources. The data support the idea of complex and integrated learning.

The data informed both managers and employees in such a way as to highlight the dynamic and complex interactions around learning processes. One practical implication is employee and manager training in emergence and complexity as learning environments. Ideas of complex responses and patterns of local interaction resonated with the data more than particular typologies of learning.

This paper captures insights, especially from employees, into the dialogue and dynamism of their learning opportunities, whilst supporting existing theories. The need for managers to “learn” employees' local interaction patterns emerged as a future research agenda, alongside the need to penetrate the social space of employee learning more deeply.

The purpose of this paper is to propose styles of reasoning for the characterization of sustainable development and sustainability as quasi‐objects of study for management.

This proposition occurs in three primary dimensions: the first deals with ontological postures, the second with epistemological perspectives, and the third with supplementary conceptualizations (dominant paradigms, the meanings of sustainable development and sustainability, and the approaches to classifying sustainability).

After the theoretical‐analytical discussion the authors present a framework that classifies different possibilities for framing sustainable development and sustainability as interesting research themes for management studies.

The paper considers that discussions about sustainable development and sustainability as concerns management studies need a deeper conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. This deficiency is expressed in the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms, and conceptual approaches that might allow these themes to have a greater coherence so that they may be researched within the scope of management studies.

Sustainable development and sustainability are discussed using various analytical perspectives, a consequence of the fact that these phenomena are understood and discussed by various social collectives, which contributes to an interpretive and conceptual oscillation of these themes for management. The relationship between sustainable development, sustainability, and social factions justifies their characterization as quasi‐objects of study for management. Via this characterization the authors intend to create a space for discussion aimed at presenting statements that are candidates for truth, but not as absolute or unquestionable truths.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a response to a comment written by Richard Laughlin on a previous paper by the authors, which appeared in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Volume 23 Number 6.

The paper addresses three issues central to the analysis of the comment on their past paper.

In addressing each of the issues in turn the authors clarify their analysis.

The paper provides an argument for the development of a paradigm for accounting practice derived from the use of pragmatic constructivism.