Search results

The purpose of this article is to describe the similarities between abductive reasoning and entrepreneurial learning processes in order to contribute to the conceptual understanding of learning as an entrepreneurial process in itself.

The research is theoretically rooted in a conceptual development of the understanding of entrepreneurial learning processes as abductive reasoning inspired by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. The theoretical explication of the connection between entrepreneurial learning processes and abductive reasoning is additionally illustrated by a hypotheses-based didactic model, developed by the authors to scaffold abducting reasoning into learning processes.

The authors found in the theoretical investigation of abductive reasoning a conceptualisation of entrepreneurial learning processes that connects entrepreneurial learning processes to basic cognitive human competences, and the authors found that key concepts in entrepreneurship, such as hunches and experiments, can be understood in a broader philosophical framework as basic cognitive competences.

The authors exemplify how abductive reasoning can be used in practice through a hypothesis-based didactic approach designed as a loop model.

The authors have discovered that abduction is closely related to entrepreneurship and can be a central conceptual link in understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and learning. The athors also believe that Peirce's concept of abduction can contribute to the philosophical understanding of entrepreneurship as another name for a constant rethinking of the world.

Strategic option generation is a fundamental step in strategy formulation. Several lenses have been proposed to explain its foundations, including the microeconomics positioning school, and the resource and capabilities based view of the firm. These approaches are largely based on inductive and deductive logics, which are not the logics that provide strategic options that are potentially novel, profitable, and largely differentiated from competitive offerings. In this chapter, we propose a unifying framework of the cognitive foundations of strategic option generation. Building on five fundamental cognitive acts – imitation, framing, analogical reasoning, abductive reasoning, and mental simulation, this proposed model both synthesizes the extant literature and provides guidance about promising avenues for future theoretical and empirical research.

The aim of the paper is to address the widening theory-praxis gap in marketing. The authors propose that one viable solution to this challenge is involving practitioners in research processes as active, reflective and empowered participants. Most extant discussions addressing the inclusion of managers as partners in theorizing restrain themselves to an “if” question, arguing whether or not it is possible to create sufficiently rigorous knowledge in collaboration with practitioners. This leaves the “how” question unanswered, i.e. how should such gap-bridging research be conducted in practice.

Based on a literature review of collaborative theorizing processes, the authors develop a conceptual framework highlighting the main research design decisions when theorizing with managers. The use of the framework is illustrated with four research program examples.

Most accounts of theorizing with managers use – explicitly or implicitly – abduction as the main mode of inference. In addition to this philosophical commonality, our literature review identified 12 themes that should be considered when designing collaborative research processes. The four illustrative examples indicate that theorizing with managers is an effective way of producing and socializing both academically sound and managerially relevant knowledge. On the other hand, collaborative theorizing processes are time-consuming and studies using abductive reasoning may be more challenging to publish in top-tier journals.

This paper makes two contributions. First, the authors go beyond the extensive academic literature which provides a plethora of explanations and ideas for potential remedies for bridging the theory-praxis gap by offering a detailed description how one particular solution, theorizing with managers, unfolds in practice. Second, the authors ground collaborative theorizing processes in the philosophy of science and put abduction forward as a common nominator for such studies.

In this chapter, the authors critique dominant technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research and elaborate an alternative account of rigor that is rooted in methodology and involves a concern with the quality of scientific reasoning rather than a narrower focus on methods or measurement issues per se. Based on the proposed redefinition, the authors conceptualize how rigor, as an essential quality of reasoning, may be defined and the authors in turn qualify alternative methodological criteria for how they might assess the rigor of any particular piece of research. In short, with this chapter the authors’ overall aim is to shift the basis of rigor to an altogether more legitimate and commensurable notion that squarely puts the focus on reasoning and scientific inference for quantitative and qualitative research alike. The authors highlight some of the benefits that such an alternative and unified view of rigor may potentially provide toward fostering the quality and progress of management research.

The purpose of this paper is to show that Hoshin Kanri has the potential to integrate the operations strategy literature into a coherent structure. Hoshin Kanri’s planning process is typically described as a top-down cascading of goals, starting with the senior management’s goals and moving to the lowest organizational level. The authors argue that this misrepresents a firm’s actual cognitive processes in practice because it implies reasoning from the effects to the cause, and assumes a direct causal relationship between what the customer wants and what is realizable by the system.

This study is conceptual, based on abductive reasoning and the literature.

The actual strategic thought process executed in an organization consists of three iterative processes: (i) a translation process that derives the desired customer attributes from customer/stakeholder data, (ii) a process of causal inference that predicts realizable customer attributes from a possible system design and (iii) an integrative process of strategic choices whereby (i) and (ii) are aligned. Each element relies on different cognitive processes (logical relation, causal relation and choice).

By aligning the thought and planning processes, the competing concepts of manufacturing strategy are integrated into a coherent structure.

Different techniques have to be applied for each of the three elements. As each element relies on different cognitive processes (logical relation, causal relation and choice), the use of unifying tools (e.g. in the form of matrices, as often presented in the literature) is inappropriate.

This is the first study to focus on the thought processes underpinning manufacturing strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to build on Dumay and Cai’s (2014) prior research to provide a deeper analysis of the problems associated with using content analysis (CA) as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure (ICD).

Totally, 110 articles utilising CA as a research methodology for inquiring into ICD are analysed based on Krippendorff’s (2013) conceptual CA research framework and design logic, and tied into issues relating to CA as a research methodology for investigating ICD.

The authors advocate that ICD CA researchers need to go back to the drawing board and ensure that future studies rigorously apply the basic logic of CA design. In its current state, ICD CA research needs to take a few steps back, before it can move forward. If ICD CA researchers can accomplish this, then there is an opportunity to undertake rigorous research to develop reliable and valid outputs that add to new knowledge about IC.

The main limitations of the research are the chosen sample of CA-based ICD articles and the adoption of the Krippendorff’s framework. However, the authors have identified the main corpus of CA-based ICD studies and since Krippendorff is the only recognised comprehensive text on CA as a methodology, the authors use the most appropriate data and framework possible for the analysis.

Prior CA studies have laid the foundation for what is a popular research methodology. However, the authors argue that the popularity of CA as a research method for investigating ICD has become so great that at times the research methodology “drives the research questions” as opposed to the “research questions driving the methodology” Hence, this research examines reasons for CA limited contemporary contribution and recommends how this may be overcome rather than prescribing how to conduct ICD CA research.

Literature review articles have become a frequently applied research approach in operations and supply chain management (SCM). The purpose of this paper aims to elaborate on four approaches for developing or employing theory in systematic literature reviews (SLRs).

The paper uses conceptual arguments and illustrates them by pointing to recent examples. In SLRs, the material collection is usually based on keywords and searching databases, which is comparatively well documented. Data analysis, however, often falls short in documentation and, consequently, is neither well explained nor replicable. Therefore, the focus of this paper is the elaboration of the data analysis and sense-making stage in the research process of SLRs.

The paper presents four different approaches, which are characterized as theory (1) building, (2) modification, (3) refinement and (4) extension, based on whether new concepts are formed or extant concepts within SCM or other fields of management theory are adopted.

The limitation of this research is that literature reviews could be conducted and presented in many ways. Since the focus of this research is on systematic literature reviews, only a limited number of approaches can be discussed and presented here.

The paper contributes to explaining the process and expected outcomes of a literature review and, therefore, aids in further developing the related methodological approaches. This is relevant as literature review publications now often replace conceptual or theoretical pieces but still have to deliver concerning demands of theory building.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how, in the future, the most successful business innovation efforts will balance analytical mastery and intuitive originality in a dynamic interplay that the author calls “design thinking.””

As a useful way to think about how to do this the paper takes the reader step‐by‐step through the “knowledge funnel” concept.

Design thinking empowers the design of business, the directed movement of a business through the knowledge funnel – from mystery to heuristic to algorithm – and then the utilization of the resulting efficiency to tackle the next mystery and the next and the next.

The apaper suggests that the velocity of movement through the knowledge funnel, powered by design thinking, is the most powerful formula for competitive advantage in the twenty‐first century.

The paper has a radical thesis: to advance knowledge, we must turn away from our standard definitions of proof – and from the false certainty of the past – and instead stare into the mystery of what could be.