Search results

While qualitative work has a long tradition in the strategy field and has recently regained popularity, we have not paused to take stock of how such work offers contributions. We address this oversight with a review of qualitative studies of strategy published in five top-tier journals over an extended period of 15 years (2003–2017). In an attempt to organize the field, we develop an empirically grounded organizing framework. We identify 12 designs that are evident in the literature, or “designs-in-use” as we call them. Acknowledging important similarities and differences between the various approaches to qualitative strategy research (QSR), we group these designs into three “families” based on their philosophical orientation. We use these designs and families to identify trends in QSR. We then engage those trends to orient the future development of qualitative methods in the strategy field.

The purpose of this paper is the conceptual expansion of the science-theoretical foundations of information science, i.e. to develop new thought schemes for information science.

The design of the paper is as follows: first, the paper will discuss the foundation of the systemic paradigm (SP). Then the authors will consider the history of information science related to the philosophy of science. In the remaining part of the paper, the authors will investigate information science and its relation to the philosophy of science, focusing on SP.

In conclusion, the authors will summarise the seven criteria for the application of SP in information science.

Paradigms in information science have rarely reflected upon the use of a SP in information science.

The practical use of the seven criteria in information science Criterion 1: make your premises, suppositions, prerequisites and motives explicit. Criterion 2: make your moral/ethical results and consequences explicit. Criterion 3: research should be evaluated in relation to the transcendence of knowledge. Criterion 4: emphasise methodical pluralism, i.e. empirical generalisations and conceptual generalisations. Criterion 5: emphasise proximity and in-depth studies. Criterion 6: look for patterns and patterns which combine. Criterion 7: look for the power behind the patterns.

The opinion is that scientists to a great extent should seek knowledge on the basis of a belief, a specific way of thinking, and by means of specific methods. To make the authors belief explicit makes the way of thinking visible. What the authors achieve, and possibly the only thing the authors can achieve, is to reaffirm the conscious belief. This does not make reality more real, but it could put the authors in a better position to see through the authors way of thinking when faced with scientific problems. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The seven criteria entail that Kuhn’s argumentative chain (where he tries to find out why theory A is preferred to theory B on a rational pretext) does not concur with SP. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

Mixed methods approaches have become increasingly relevant in social sciences research over the last few decades. Nevertheless, we show that these approaches have rarely been explicitly applied in higher education research. This is somewhat surprising because mixed methods and empirical research into higher education seem to be a perfect match for several reasons: (1) the role of the researcher, which is associated with strong intersections between the research subject and the research object; (2) the research process, which relies on concepts and theories that are borrowed from other research fields; and (3) the research object, which exhibits unclear techniques in teaching and learning, making it difficult to grasp causalities between input and results. Mixed methods approaches provide a suitable methodology to research such topics. Beyond this, potential future developments underlining the particular relevance of mixed methods approaches in higher education are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the field of learning, learning style, meta‐cognition, strategies and teaching by classifying different levels of the learning process. The paper aims to present an attempt to identify how students' awareness of learning style and teachers' matched instruction might affect students' learning and motivation.

The paper is a conceptual paper in which a theoretical framework built on empirical research was identified by connecting and systemizing different parts of the learning process.

The paper finds that teaching based on individual learning styles is an effective way to ensure students' achievement and motivation. Awareness of learning styles, it is argued, influences meta‐cognition and choice of relevant learning strategies. Consciousness of own improvement provides students with new perspectives of their learning potential. Such positive academic experiences may enhance self‐efficacy.

The paper provides useful information on unraveling concepts, methods and effects which can aid students, teachers and researchers in understanding, evaluating and monitoring learning, thus having practical implications for promoting lifelong learning, self‐efficacy and salutogenesis.

Jürgen Habermas is one of the most important authors in contemporary philosophy. In this chapter, we analyse his contribution to the philosophical debate on universalism and relativism and consider its implications for organization studies and organizations operating in an intercultural environment. We briefly describe the critique of a universal concept of reason that has been forwarded by sceptical and postmodern philosophers. As a response to this critique, we outline the contribution of discourse ethics and analyse the theories of Jürgen Habermas and his colleague Karl-Otto Apel. We explore the justification of discourse ethics and point out some problems in its argumentative logic. In the light of this critique, we outline some characteristics of an intercultural ethics that is based on constructivist philosophy and point to some encouraging prospects on the consolidation of the debate between relativistic and universalistic philosophers.

The chapter addresses the challenges of research into educational technology in the context of higher education and of theory-building in this field afforded by singular research methods and philosophies. Using an exemplar case study, the authors argue for the adoption of pluralism to facilitate deep exploration of complex social phenomena. Pluralism is conceptualized by distinguishing between methodological, analytical, and philosophical pluralism. In addition, arguments for and against pluralism are advanced. The chapter concludes with step-by-step proposals for engaging pluralism in higher education research studies.

The purpose of the paper is to critically question conventional views of the one‐dimensional, mechanistic and negative image of human nature of Scientific Management. Both for worker behavior and for managerial behavior positive aspects of an image of human nature are reconstructed in organizational economic terms.

Through institutional economic reconstruction, drawing on the methods and concepts of organizational and institutional economics, the portrayal of workers and managers by Scientific Management is critically assessed.

It is suggested that a conceptual asymmetry exists in Taylor's writings regarding the portrayal of human nature of workers and managers. Whereas for workers a model of self‐interest was applied (through the concepts of “systematic soldering” and “natural soldiering”), Taylor portrayed managers through a positive, behavioral model of human nature that depicted the manager as “heartily cooperative”. The key thesis is that by modeling managers through a rather positive image of human nature Taylor could no longer methodically apply the model of economic man in order to test out and prevent interaction conflict between potentially self‐interested managers and workers.

The paper focused on Scientific Management to advance the thesis that the portrayal of human nature has been ill approached by management and organization theorists who were apparently pioneering an institutional and organizational economics. Future research has to broaden the scope of research to other pioneers in management and organization research, but also to critics in behavioral sciences, such as organization psychology, who may misunderstand how economics approaches the portrayal of human nature, in particular regarding self‐interest.

Taylor's portrayal of managers as naturally good persons, who were not self‐interested, caused implementation conflict and implementation problems for Scientific Management and led to his summoning by the US Congress. By modeling managers as heartily cooperative, Taylor could no longer analyze potentially self‐interested behavior, even opportunistic behavior of managers in their interactions with workers. Scientific Management had thus no remedy to handle “soldiering” of managers. This insight, that managerialism needs to be accounted for in a management theory, has manifold practical implications for management consultancy, management education, and for the practice of management in general. Students and practitioners have to be informed about the necessary and useful role a model of self‐interest (economic man) methodically plays in economic management theory.

The paper reconstructs the portrayal of human nature in early management theory, which seemingly anticipated the advances – and certain pitfalls – of modern institutional economics. The paper unearths, from an economic perspective, conceptual misunderstandings of Taylor regarding his image of human nature of workers and managers.

This chapter focuses on the Chinese cross-border merger and acquisition (M&A) amid the rising trend of multinational companies from emerging economies. Based on a systematic review of published papers in top international business/strategy/organization journals on Chinese overseas M&A, we offer a tentative multilevel framework to consolidate the past achievement, consider contemporary debates, so as to direct future research efforts. We suggest that Chinese overseas M&A research should emphasize on a process perspective ranging from pre-acquisition to post-acquisition. In addition, qualitative research and methodological pluralism should be embraced to achieve this goal due to the nature of this emerging field of Chinese cross-border M&A. By allocating the extant literature into the multilevel framework, we articulate the demand and identify several potential topics for scholarly inquiry in the future in order to gain a nuanced understanding of this important phenomenon of Chinese cross-border M&A for both China and the rest of the world.

Mixed methods research can provide a fruitful line of inquiry for educational leadership, program evaluation, and policy analysis; however, mixed methods research requires a metatheory that allows for mixing what have traditionally been considered incompatible qualitative and quantitative inquiry. The purpose of this paper is to apply Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action as that metatheoretical justification.

After reviewing the traditional quantitative/qualitative divide based on incompatible ontologies, the author argues for a pragmatist stance toward educational leadership inquiry. Such a stance allows for mixing methods because it privileges methodology and epistemology in social inquiry, rather than ontological theories of reality. Using Habermas’s metatheory, the author shows how truth claims are linguistically mediated; how they make reference to objective, subjective, and normative formal worlds; and how they are always fallible and revisable.

The author argues that Habermas’s metatheory allows (and requires) integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to fully understand social phenomena. Such integration is possible if researchers attempt to make methodological decisions explicit by linking methodology (and thus methodical decisions) to all three formal worlds, and articulating the rationale for doing so. The author also argues that making the entire corpus of claims bound within a line of social inquiry subject to critical examination promotes the validity of inquiry.

This paper contributes to the discussion on mixed methods research by applying a particular strand of pragmatism. This is an advance in the extant literature, which argues for a pragmatist stance on mixed methods research, but has not yet conceptualized a metatheoretical position supporting this stance.