Search results

The purpose of this paper is to encourage service researchers to engage in “theoretical disruption” by purposefully adding variance to existing substantive theories, and conceptual frameworks, to construct formal theories of buyer–seller marketplace behaviors. The authors put forth an original four-stage process that illustrates the way substantive theories may be developed into formal theories.

The authors provide their opinions regarding theoretical creation and their interpretations of Grounded Theory methodological techniques that support the development of general theories within the social sciences.

In general, the services marketing discipline is based on a foundation of substantive theories, and proposed conceptual frameworks, which emerged from samples, contexts and conditions that ensue within industrialized, upper-income locales. Rather than seek to expand substantive theories by generating new categories and relationships between categories, most researchers limit their verification studies within the scope of original theoretical frameworks. Resultantly, the services marketing domain has not developed a set of formal theories.

The editors encourage researchers to reconsider the discipline’s substantive theories and to transform them into formal theories. Substantive theories expand into formal theories when researchers question original theoretical frameworks and show situations in which they require modification. Theoretical verification does not transform substantive theories into formal theories; rather, the discovery of negative cases suggests the need for theoretical modification.

This work suggests that researchers may be over-emphasizing the generalizability of their proposed theories in papers because of a lack of sample variance in empirical studies.

The purpose of this article is to identify and explain most frequently misunderstood steps in the use of grounded theory (GT) as a methodology and provide guidance on proper execution of these elements.

This research provides meaningful guidance to both reviewers and authors interested in applying GT. This research is expected to advance the pursuit of formal theory development.

There are four most frequently misunderstood steps in the use of GT as a methodology. These are related to the use of literature, theoretical sampling, core category and formal theory development. Proper execution of these elements is important for convincing reviewers and readers that the findings of the research are meaningful and trustworthy.

This paper should be of significant value to researchers who are interested in GT as a methodology. It adds to the few journal articles that address the proper ways to conduct GT.

Indicators of economic and social phenomena can be useful descriptive and analytical inputs for public policy. The “social indicators movement” has emerged in the last decade and is devoted to the measurement of widely‐ranging dimensions of human welfare. For the most part, questions of systematic measurement for public policy are explored here. Drawing initially on some traditions of measurement in economics, the principal aim is to provide a broad theoretical frame of reference for policy indicator design. Questions of indicator development necessarily involve ideas of suitability or validity of indicators designed for a purpose. Approaches to indicator design for the purpose of enhancing collective decision‐making—including formal model building approaches—are subsumed as special cases once a more general theory is espoused in sections II and III.

Anticipating behaviour and responding to the needs of complexity and the problematic issues that they can generate requires modelling to facilitate analysis and diagnosis. Using arguments of anticipation as an imperative for inquiry, the purpose of this paper is to introduce generic modelling for living systems theory, and assigns the number of generic constructs to orders of simplex modelling. An nth simplex order rests in an nth order simplex cybernetic space. A general modelling theory of higher orders of simplexity is given, where each higher order responds to every generic construct involved, the properties of which determining the rules of the complex system being that is represented. Higher orders of simplexity also explain greater degrees of complexity relatively simply, and give rise to the development of new paradigms that are better able to explain perceived complex phenomena.

This is part 1 of three linked papers. Using principles that arise from Schwarz’s living systems set within a framework provided by cultural agency theory, and with a rationale provided by Rosen’s and Dubois’ concepts of anticipation, the papers develops a general modelling theory of simplex orders. It shows that with the development of new higher orders, paradigm shifts can occur that become responsible for new ways of seeing and resolving stubborn problematic issues. The paper is composed of two parts. Part 1 establishes the fundamentals for a theory of modelling associated with cybernetic orders. Using this, part 2 establishes the principles of cybernetic orders using simplex modelling. This will include a general theory of generic modelling. Part 3 extends this, developing a fourth order simplex model, and exploring the potential for higher orders using recursive techniques through cultural agency theory.

Cultural agency theory can be used to generate higher simplex through principles of recursion, and hence to create a potential for the generation of families of new paradigms. The idea of conceptual emergence is also tied to the rise of new paradigms.

The use of higher order simplex models to represent complex situations provides the ability to condense explanation concerning the development of particular system behaviours, and hence simplify the way in which the authors analyse, diagnose and anticipate behaviour in complex situations. Illustration is also given showing how the theory can explain the emergence of new paradigms.

Cultural agency can be used to structure problem issues that may otherwise be problematic, within both a top-down and bottom up approach. It may also be used to assist in establishing behavioural anticipation given an appropriate modelling approach. It may also be used to improve and compress explanation of complex situations.

A new theory of simplex orders arises from the new concept of generic modelling, illustrating cybernetic order. This permits the possibility of improved analysis and diagnosis of problematic situations belonging to complex situations through the use of higher order simplex models, and facilitates improvement in behavioural anticipation.

Complex systems adapt to survive, but little comparative literature exists on various approaches. Adaptive complex systems are generic, this referring to propositions concerning their bounded instability, adaptability and viability. Two classes of adaptive complex system theories exist: hard and soft. Hard complexity theories include Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Viability Theory, and softer theories, which we refer to as Viable Systems Theories (VSTs), that include Management Cybernetics at one extreme and Humanism at the other. This paper has a dual purpose distributed across two parts. In Part 1, the purpose of this paper is to identify the conditions for the complementarity of the two classes of theory. In Part 2, the purpose is to explore (in part using Agency Theory) the two classes of theory and their proposed complexity continuum.

A detailed analysis of the literature permits a distinction between hard and softer approaches towards modelling complex social systems. Hard theories are human-incommensurable, while soft ones are human-commensurable, therefore more closely related to the human condition. The characteristics that differentiate between hard and soft approaches are identified.

Hard theories are more restrictive than the softer theories. The latter can embrace degrees of “softness” and it is explained how hard and soft approaches can be mixed, sometimes creating Harmony.

There are very few explorations of the relationship between hard and soft approaches to complexity theory, and even fewer that draw in the notion of harmony.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify four common confusions in grounded theory (GT) use by demonstrating an example of the author's doctoral study into conceptualising higher education students' learning and knowledge sharing by exploring blogging phenomena. It seeks not only to present the author's personal experience and views, but also to shed light on the causes of the confusion for novice qualitative researchers.

A review of literature on GT and the author's practical experience of undertaking an empirical study into the blogging phenomenon in LIS discipline form the approach to addressing the issue.

The paper summarises four common issues that hinder inexperienced qualitative researchers when they undertake GT research: using GT as a methodology or method; how to use literature review; how to use coding strategy; and what is the generated theory.

The paper provides practical suggestions of what matters when adopting GT approach. It needs more new researchers to further confirm the suggestions that the author stated in terms of a researcher's unique experience.

The paper attempts to bridge the gap of insufficient discussion in the literature, focuses on new researchers' GT adopting experiences and provides them with practical directions.

The aim is to identify and demonstrate the paradigmatic changes that quantum information science engenders in observing and the cybernetics thereof. The new paradigm obviates articulation nodes between the physical and non‐physical worlds (in the sense of Penrose).

Using modal/conditional heuristics, falsification, and consistency analysis, the study designs a formal approach to operating distinctions and (re‐)unifying them through their (formal) languages. To be able to introduce new concepts, consequences of key theses in cybernetics, information, and quantum information science are discussed.

The observer's observer turns into a quantum observer through extending both the how‐controls to what‐why‐controls, and cybernetics' competence of conveying control across disciplines. This turn confines successive‐orders cybernetics to particular applications, but enables the observing to become nearly as self‐generative as information or knowledge is. Quantum observer and cybernetics are shown to be tight in a mutual learning circularity.

Immediate implications concern the framework for unifying observation‐based disciplines with those relying on knowledge generated formally. A limitation is that the framework is necessarily incomplete. At the far‐end, formalisms that solve problems of observer‐dependent complexities are expected to result.

The approach and findings are reported here for the first time. These and the philosophy/epistemology behind cross‐, or non‐disciplinary observers‐languages are crucial for designers of research programmes as well as for actualising sociocybernetics' potential of becoming a unifier.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal, reflective account of applying grounded theory, in particular Glaser's approach, in accounting research. It seeks to reduce barriers to adopting the grounded theory approach.

The approach taken is providing an overview of Glaser's grounded theory and discussing the authors' application of it, thus discussing their personal experiences.

The paper seeks to provide a greater insight into using the grounded theory approach, through illustrating the authors' personal experiences with its application. It seeks to highlight the merits and pitfalls, including any attempts to overcome these, as these are perceived from a subjective viewpoint.

The paper provides an individual account of how a grounded theory study was undertaken. The subjectivity of such undertaking has to be taken into consideration.

The application of the grounded theory approach is discussed retrospectively, in a bid to provide an insight to interpretive research projects in general and grounded theory in particular. It is still rarely used in accounting research, but has potential to contribute at all levels of accounting research. The paper provides an individual account of using this approach.

The purpose is to forward systems theory one more step towards social theory and integrate problem-solving and theory-building, and search for the integration and unity of science by revealing the nature and role of critical systems thinking (CST).

This article describes relations between systems theory and social theory in three parts. First, it examines the links of systems methodologies with three social science approaches as well as the role of CST. Second, the focus of theory and the form of explanation are discussed from critical social science (CSS) perspective. Third, the direction of theorizing of a CST-based systems theory is investigated.

First, CST is a hidden assumption of system dynamics (SD)/systems thinking (ST). Second, systems theory is positioned in CSS. Third, CST integrates traditional and soft systems methodologies (SSM), and connects systems science and social science. Fourth, this article reveals hidden links between systems approaches and three corresponding social science approaches. Fifth, the theoretical focus of a CST-based systems theory could be formal/structure theory and/or substantive/content theory. Sixth, the form of explanation could be structural/mechanismic explanation combining causal and interpretive explanations. Seventh, a CST-based systems theory may adopt abduction, which complements a defect in deduction and induction in a difficulty of nonlinearity.

It illustrates a graph of the competing approaches in systems science corresponding to paradigms in social science.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the recent lines of inquiry into entrepreneurial cognition by focusing on the structure of values as an important aspect of cognition. Value theory, or axiology, posits that the capacity to value and to make value judgments is a distinctly human function – one that is a higher order process than is pure cognition alone.

This study is designed as a quantitative discovery. A well-established assessment instrument from the field of value science is used to measure deep-seated, evaluative thought patterns for a sample of founders of early stage startups and a comparative sample of senior managers. Value structures underlying cognition for individuals across these samples are compared to reveal both similarities and differences between the groups.

This study identifies a cognitive process underlying opportunity recognition, evaluation and exploitation, known as integration. This study finds that entrepreneurs have stronger capacities for integrative thinking than do managers. In contrast to other published research, this study finds that early stage entrepreneurs are not characterized by hubris, an inflated sense of self-efficacy, nor an exceptional capacity for action.

This paper extends the study of entrepreneurial cognition by applying an empirical measure of the foundational levels of cognition. It reveals heretofore unarticulated differences, as well as similarities, between entrepreneurs and managers.