Search results

The idea that a significant portion of what consumers do, feel, and think is driven by automatic (or “implicit”) cognitive processes has sparked a wave of interest in the development of assessment tools that (attempt to) capture cognitive processes under automaticity conditions (also known as “implicit measures”). However, as more and more implicit measures are developed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for consumer scientists and marketing professionals to select the most appropriate tool for a specific research question. We therefore present a systematic overview of the criteria that can be used to evaluate and compare different implicit measures, including their structural characteristics, the extent to which (and the way in which) they qualify as “implicit,” as well as more practical considerations such as ease of implementation and the user experience of the respondents. As an example, we apply these criteria to four implicit measures that are (or have the potential to become) popular in marketing research (i.e., the implicit association test, the evaluative priming task, the affect misattribution procedure, and the propositional evaluation paradigm).

To date, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the use of implicit measures in the service research domain is limited. This paper aims to introduce implicit measures and explain why, or for what purpose, they are worthwhile to consider; how these measures can be used; and when and where implicit measures merit the service researcher’s consideration.

To gain an understanding of how implicit measures could benefit service research, three promising implicit measures are discussed, namely, the implicit association test, the affect misattribution procedure and the propositional evaluation paradigm. More specifically, this paper delves into how implicit measures can support service research, focusing on three focal service topics, namely, technology, affective processes including customer experience and service employees.

This paper demonstrates how implicit measures can investigate paramount service-related subjects. Additionally, it provides essential methodological “need-to-knows” for assessing others’ work with implicit measures and/or for starting your own use of them.

This paper introduces when and why to consider integrating implicit measures in service research, along with a roadmap on how to get started.

The meaning of management is partly the management of meaning. Management is an activity in which people collaborate not just over what they do but also how they mean: how concepts like “effective” are defined and made actual through work, and how knowledge can properly be applied to management situations. Such knowledge is not merely intellectual; it takes in values and belief systems and the intentionalities of discourse. Management is also an area in which over‐arching paradigms of what is best to know and do demonstrate pluralistic and collaborative features. What is known, and what is best to know, therefore, are built up through negotiation and reformulation. This occurs in settings characterised by organisational cultures and authority structures like line management, and in these we find meanings being negotiated for many complex cognitive, ideological and interpersonal reasons (such as to avoid “loss of face”). In professional information training, it is important to develop knowledge of, and skills in, the management of meaning, using negotiative strategies and tactics.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on concepts of validity and validation of social marketing research (SMR) with a view to enhancing SMR design and to inform SMR practice.

The paper defines and presents concepts of validity in a manner that sheds light on the unique issues facing SMR and sets the stage for future research.

The paper introduces an integrated model representing the variety of relationships that exist amongst a range of validity concepts that will assist methodological practice and increased rigor in future studies. The authors also introduce a matrix on research paradigms that can support the integration of a range of philosophical considerations to SMR research design.

The “quality” of research is being determined by those at the leading edge of their own paradigm without reference to other points of view. The authors argue that these sub‐processes of determining the validity of research outcomes are a challenge to the “discipline” of SMR and that SMR is at risk of becoming too narrowly focussed. Furthermore, the authors believe this is limiting SMR's potential to contribute to the broader domain of business or social research.

Social marketing is an interdisciplinary practice. The paradigms of research within the social marketing domain are still being argued and are the subject of much debate. The authors believe that the conceptual frameworks developed for this paper will enhance the practices of research in the field of social marketing.

The paper provides a new conceptual framework for those developing SMR. This framework aims to integrate others' theories and provide a simplified framework for consideration of issues of validation in SMR.

Judgement is a pivotal notion for understanding learning. But how we view judgement is crucially shaped by our favoured conception of learning. The favoured conception of learning is shown to distort judgement, while an emerging conception of learning does justice both to judgement and learning from work.

The purpose of this paper is to represent an epistemological analysis of Russian sociological scholarship.

The analytical approach that allows reducing the particular representations within the sum of propositions is the methodological base of the paper. Clearing of propositional attitudes explains the basic communications in a thought of researchers. The circle of grounds available to achievement of intuitively noticed purposes defines the preferences of researchers in general.

The author proves that the theoretical developments in the Russian sociology are possible as a derivative from the development of questions, which are raised nowadays in worldwide science, but possible in a view of original development of questions, which were raised in worldwide science in the past.

The Russian sociology represents a part of the European humanities, which is based on the various forms of theoretical combat or agonality.

The author shows the ways out of the theoretical combat or agonality.

The research clarifies the perspectives for increasing of the knowledge-based society in Russia. The author analyzes the concept of Russia as a paradigmatic society, particularly in the context of transition economies.

In general, the author concludes that the pro-argument with respect to theoretical developments is weaker than the contra-argument with respect to theoretical developments. This paper has revealed the model within which extreme positions can be reconciled.

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 includes 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 was to identify the conditions for the complementarity of the two classes of theory. In part 2 the two the purpose is to explore (in part using Agency Theory) the two classes of theory and their proposed complexity continuum.

Explanation is provided for the anticipation of behaviour cross-disciplinary fields of theory dealing with adaptive complex systems. A comparative exploration of the theories is undertaken to elicit concepts relevant to a complexity continuum. These explain how agency behaviour can be anticipated under uncertainty. Also included is a philosophical exploration of the complexity continuum, expressing it in terms of a graduated set of philosophical positions that are differentiated in terms of objects and subjects. These are then related to hard and softer theories in the continuum. Agency theory is then introduced as a framework able to comparatively connect the theories on this continuum, from theories of complexity to viable system theories, and how harmony theories can develop.

Anticipation is explained in terms of an agency’s meso-space occupied by a regulatory framework, and it is shown that hard and softer theory are equivalent in this. From a philosophical perspective, the hard-soft continuum is definable in terms of objectivity and subjectivity, but there are equivalences to the external and internal worlds of an agency. A fifth philosophical position of critical realism is shown to be representative of harmony theory in which internal and external worlds can be related. Agency theory is also shown to be able to operate as a harmony paradigm, as it can explore external behaviour of an agent using a hard theory perspective together with an agent’s internal cultural and cognitive-affect causes.

There are very few comparative explorations of the relationship between hard and soft approaches in the field of complexity and even fewer that draw in the notion of harmony. There is also little pragmatic illustration of a harmony paradigm in action within the context of complexity.

In exploring the impact of reflective and work applied approaches, the authors are curious how vivid new insights and collective “Eureka” momentums occur. These momentums can be forces for work communities to gain competitive advantages. However, the authors know little of how learning is actively involved in the processing of creating new insights and how such a turning to learning mode (Pässilä and Owens, 2016) can be facilitated. In the light of cultural studies and art education, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the method of dramatising characters (DC) in a specific innovation culture can be facilitated. In this viewpoint, the authors are suggesting one approach for this type of turning to learning which the authors call Beyond Text, outlining its theoretical underpinnings, its co-creative development and its application.

In this Beyond Text context, the authors are introducing the method of DC and the method of iStory both of which are the authors’ own design based on the theory of the four existing categories of a research-based theatre.

The findings of this viewpoint paper are that both iStory as well as DC methods are useful and practical learning facilitation processes and platforms that can be adopted for use in organisations for promoting reflexivity. Especially they can act as a bridge between various forms of knowing and consummate the other knowledge types (experiential, practical and propositional) in a way that advances practice-based innovation.

The originality and value of iStory and DC is that they can be utilised as dialogical evaluation methods when traditional evaluation strategies and pre-determined indicators are unusable.