Search results1 – 10 of over 57000
The purpose of this research is to explore the deployment of the total quality management (TQM) paradigm in the TQM Journal in relation to the context of the 21st century…
The purpose of this research is to explore the deployment of the total quality management (TQM) paradigm in the TQM Journal in relation to the context of the 21st century. The study builds on the theoretical framework of the four quality paradigms that together compose TQM. The four paradigms differ in their effectiveness based on the context in which they are used. In a complex context, one would expect the reflective and the emergence paradigm to flourish. The TQM Journal is one of the leading scientific journals on TQM. If the assumption that the reflective and emergent paradigm would flourish in a complex environment is correct, one will see that represented in the past five years of scientific research in that magazine.
The TQM Journal articles of the past five years from January 2016 till January 2021 have been chosen as the scope of an exploratory review. The author assessed the title and abstract of all articles based on the characteristics of the four quality paradigms, as described in the theoretical framework. If the title and abstract did not provide enough data to take the decision for the assessment, the whole article has been taken into account. The results have been collated, summarized and reported. Based on the results, the author explores the possible patterns.
In total, 283 articles from 2016 to 2021 (from Volume 28, Issue 1 to Volume 33, Issue 1) were included in this study. In total, 45 were read fully to be able to characterize the article. Most of the studies relate the tertiary (33.3%) and secondary (27.9%) sectors. Healthcare was the sector in 32 of the cases (11.3%). Most studies have been conducted in Europe (n = 82, 28.9%) and Asia (n = 58, 20.5%). Within Europe, Italy was the most prolific country with, respectively, 25 (30.8%) of the articles. The USA and Canada only had five articles in these five years (1.8%). Many articles did not specify the region. More than half of the articles (52.4%) worked with surveys, questionnaires or other methods to involve the customer in the research; 16 articles (5.6%) used experts in the field through expert panels and such to collect data from. In total, 107 articles (37.8%) did involve no other stakeholders than the researchers themselves. Eight studies (2.8%) used action research or co-design methodology to create optimal stakeholder participation. Based on the data, four patterns can be discovered: the context sensitivity of the articles, reflexivity, coping with uncertainty and co-creation.
It is acknowledged that the articles in the study were published in just one scientific journal. One can expect that this will be represented in other journals on TQM. Still, it would be interesting to conduct a follow-up study in other journals on TQM and compare the results. The research is done by one subjective researcher.
Research on TQM should take the complexity of the context into account. For that purpose, researchers should focus more on the emergence paradigm within TQM.
This study is the first to investigate TQM as a holistic paradigm, including the empirical, reflective, reference and emergence paradigm in TQM research.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the paradigmatic context and structure of the current theories and controversies in mainstream academic finance. It…
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the paradigmatic context and structure of the current theories and controversies in mainstream academic finance. It identifies the context among paradigms and the structure within the identified paradigm. The paper is based on the view that worldviews underlie theories and controversies in general, and those of finance, in particular. It notes how any worldview can be positioned on a continuum formed by four basic paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist. Then, the paper notes that theories and controversies in mainstream academic finance, despite their apparent diversity, are founded on and associated with the functionalist paradigm. Then, the paper continues with the discussion of the hierarchical structure of paradigms. It discusses that it consists of three consecutive levels: paradigm; metaphor; and puzzle solving. It looks at a sample of prominent controversies in academic finance and notes that they belong to the substructure of the functionalist paradigm. Throughout, the paper emphasizes that, in the future, mainstream academic finance should benefit from the contributions of the other three paradigms.
This chapter explores the potential for and value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It explores how the idea of a “paradigm” in tourism can be…
This chapter explores the potential for and value of imagining a humanist paradigm for tourism studies. It explores how the idea of a “paradigm” in tourism can be conceptualized, arguing that dominant thoughtlines in other fields regarding the meaning of a paradigm are not sufficient for making sense of this idea in the context of tourism studies. The chapter introduces humanism as a philosophical position in the academy and as a lived cultural practice, explores examples of extant work in tourism studies that might be seen to provide the seeds of a humanist paradigm, and offers reflections on the value of imagining such a paradigm for our field.
The premise for this volume is that there is “a need to develop a Handbook that takes scholars and practitioners through the paradigm change going on in the field of…
The premise for this volume is that there is “a need to develop a Handbook that takes scholars and practitioners through the paradigm change going on in the field of management and organizational inquiry.” In their invitation to contributors, the editors suggested we should comment on this transition and inform readers of theoretical and philosophical changes that have occurred in recent times. In this chapter, we attempt to do this by revisiting the influential concept of paradigm from the philosophy of science (Kuhn, 1962, 1970) and explore its relation to recent contributions to postmodern social theory in organizational analysis. In particular, the influential paradigm model of Burrell and Morgan (1979) is revisited through meta-theoretical analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in organization theory in recent decades, post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism. Proposing a retrospective paradigm for this movement we suggest that its research can be characterized as ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist, and methodologically reflexive; this also represents research that can be termed deconstructionist in its view of human nature. Consequently we demonstrate not only that organizational knowledge stands on meta-theoretical grounds, but also how recent intellectual developments rest on a qualitatively different set of meta-theoretical assumptions than established traditions of agency and structure.
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…
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.
After briefly discussing the two major approaches to the study of tourism (theoretical “why” and practical “how”), and two of their respective protagonists (Tribe and Aramberri), the focus of this chapter turns to the use of paradigms by the former group. First, the meaning of paradigm is explored and examples are provided of paradigms and paradigm shifts in tourism research. However, Aramberri challenges this theoretical position by asserting that such ideological frameworks are not paradigms at all, and are, at best, postmodern mantras. He further argues that such muddled thinking can be overcome once tourism becomes a scientific discipline, a stance firmly rejected by the theoreticians. Thereafter, the use of the word “paradigm” is examined in relation to conferences, research, and shifts, as well as such major tourism perspectives as authenticity, strangerhood, play, and conflict.
This chapter engages cosmopolitan and feminist paradigms of knowledge production through their shared ethics of social justice, equality, and diversity, promoting…
This chapter engages cosmopolitan and feminist paradigms of knowledge production through their shared ethics of social justice, equality, and diversity, promoting integration into an emerging postdisciplinary focus on embodied cosmopolitanism(s) as a promising way forward in tourism studies. Cosmopolitan paradigms theorize the dialectics of cultural diversity and universal rights, while feminist cosmopolitanism focuses on gender and sexuality equality and difference within this intersection. An embodied approach combines work on “the body” and “situated embodiment” with the cosmopolitan to embrace all human differences and acknowledge that the researchers’ own embodied cosmopolitanism affects research questions, ethics, and praxis toward transformation in research communities and the academy.
This chapter introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies Habermas’ philosophy to examine the environment where knowledge production takes place. The analysis shows the…
This chapter introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies Habermas’ philosophy to examine the environment where knowledge production takes place. The analysis shows the dominance of “the systemic paradigm,” which is characterized by increased bureaucratization and commercialization. This paradigm has severe consequences for two core features of universities: the open-ended search for deeper understanding and the principle of autonomy. The chapter advances the idea of reclaiming the political dimension of the epistemic endeavor and presents a series of initiatives which help to advance tourism scholarship by non-conforming to the steering conditions of this paradigm and instead reclaiming the personal and subjective; promoting multiple knowledges; and building alternative platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination.