Search

The grounded theory method (GT) remains elusive and misunderstood by many—even those who advocate its use. In practice, many research studies cite the use of GT but merely apply certain a la carte aspects or jargon of the method while not actually incorporating the fundamental principles of the methodology. Consequently, the purpose of this article is fourfold: (a) to demystify the key tenets of GT, (b) to discuss the problematic impacts of adopting an a la carte approach to GT, (c) to draw attention to GT as a rigorous method for business research, and (d) to advocate for the increased use of GT by more researchers where appropriate. Throughout the article, the authors use the example of a recently completed GT study by the lead author to highlight the multiple dimensions of GT and how they all work together.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the theoretical relationship between translational science and music. The relationship between science and music has been of great interest to philosophers, historians, and musicologists for centuries. From a sociological perspective, we argue that science and music are closely linked at the level of everyday life in contemporary biomedical science. Translational science is a scientific movement that aims to facilitate the efficient application of bio-medical research to the design and delivery of clinical services, and a qualitative approach inspired by symbolic interactionism provides the opportunity to examine the place of the scientist in this movement. The concept of the existential self provides a useful platform for this examination insofar as the reflexive nature of the existential self is the way the person’s experience of individuality is affected by and in turn affects organizational change. An ongoing qualitative study of an NIH-funded program in translational science has found that music can serve to help scientists maintain a balanced self in light of new expectations placed upon them and their work. We identify six ways in which scientists can use music to enhance their sense of self and their work.

Dynamic Assessment has recently been voiced of constructivism, the socio-cultural theory of learning. This article, challenging the psychometric and product-based test, makes an attempt to delve into the epistemological and ontological theories of Dynamic Assessment (DA) and their criticisms. DA is the offspring of Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Feuerstein’s mediated learning experience (MLE). It emphasises constructing a future through mediations. Interestingly, this development-oriented process of collaboration relies on the unification of instruction and assessment which is a strong threat to the reliability of the psychometric tests. This study also deals with the battle of views on DA. It discusses the appealing face of DA embracing ethical values, fairness and social equity, and the process based assessment. It also argues the negative face of DA comprising modifiability, interventionism, and stability. It finally concludes that each system should be criticised by certain criteria. Faced with the scarcity of research both theoretically and empirically, the critical analysis of this new generation of test in an L2 setting might be helpful for further discussions, suggestions and implications in the second language learning arena.

In this chapter, we first review the two main approaches to categories (understood from a cognitive perspective) found in the current literature. The ecological and the goal-based approaches to categories vary in terms of premises (prototypes vs. ideals), processes (central tendency and family resemblance vs. conceptual combination and goal achievement), and economic and institutional consequences. We then present three modes of reconciliation between the two approaches (intra-audience, inter-audience and as a function of field evolution) and integrate them more broadly into the institutional literature. Finally, in the last section, we expose fruitful areas for future research: we account for the domain validity of each approach; emphasize ignored research avenues at the field, organizational and individual levels; and finally make stronger connections between category research and strategy research.

This paper reviews several streams of research on market category formation. Most past research has largely focused on established category systems and the antecedents and consequences of categorical positioning (i.e., categorical purity vs. spanning; combination vs. replacement) but relatively ignored the formative processes leading to new categories. In this review, we address this lacuna to posit that scholarship would benefit from clearly disentangling category emergence from category creation. We analytically describe the differences between the two and elaborate the boundary conditions that guide and define which process is more likely to occur in a given market. Our review contributes to illuminating the role of organizational agency and strategic actions in market categories and their formation, which deserve greater attention as a result of their theoretical and practical implications.

The recently born expression "analytic narratives" refers to studies that have appeared at the boundaries of history, political science, and economics. These studies purport to explain specific historical events by combining the usual narrative way of historians with the analytic tools that economists and political scientists find in rational choice theory. Game theory is prominent among these tools. The paper explains what analytic narratives are by sampling from the eponymous book Analytic Narratives by Bates, Greif, Levi, Rosenthal, and Weingast (1998) and covering one outside study by Mongin (2008). It first evaluates the explanatory performance of the new genre, using some philosophy of historical explanation and then checks its discursive consistency, using some narratology. The paper concludes that analytic narratives can usefully complement standard narratives in historical explanation, provided they specialize in the gaps that these narratives reveal and that they are discursively consistent, despite the tension that combining a formal model with a narration creates. Two expository modes, called alternation and local supplementation, emerge from the discussion as the most appropriate ones to resolve this tension

In a meta-analysis published in BMC Medicine, we explored whether evidence-based medicine can actually be sure that ‘sucrose = sucrose’ in the treatment of depression. This paper, based upon a reductio ad absurdum, addressed an epistemological question using a ‘scientific’ approach, and could be disconcerting as suggested by Cipriani and Geddes’ commentary. However, most papers are based upon a mixture of observations and discussions about sense and meaning. Ultimately, there is nothing more than a story, told with words or numbers. Randomised controlled trials provide information about average patients that do not exist. These results ignores an entire segment of therapeutics that plays a crucial role, namely care. This information is usually set out using a ‘grammar’ that is ambiguous, since statistical tests of hypothesis have raised epistemological questions that are not as yet solved. Moreover, many of these stories remain untold, and unpublished. For these reasons evidence-based medicine is a vehicle for many paradoxes and controversies. Reductio ad absurdum can be useful in precisely this case, to underline how and why the medical literature can sometimes give an impression of absurdity of this sort. Even if the data analysis in our paper was rather rhetorical, we agree that it should comply with the classic standards of reporting and we provide the important extra data that Cipriani and Geddes have requested. Please see related articles: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/230 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/105.

De tous les problèmes conçus par la théorie de la décision, le paradoxe d'Allais est peut-être celui qui aura suscité l'intérêt le plus persistant. La théorie y a consacré assez de travaux techniques remarquables pour qu'il soit désormais possible à l'histoire et à la philosophie des sciences de l'examiner réflexivement. Dans sa partie historique, l'article restitue le contexte d'apparition du paradoxe - le colloque de Paris, en 1952, auquel assistaient les principaux théoriciens de la décision du moment. L'axiomatique de von Neumann et Morgenstern en 1947 leur avait donné des raisons nouvelles d'approuver l'hypothèse de l'utilité attendue, et le contre-exemple d'Allais visait précisément à ébranler leur conviction. Les questions de la controverse étaient de type normatif, mais elles se perdirent quand le "paradoxe d'Allais" gagna tardivement la célébrité dans des travaux des années 1980 qui le traitaient comme une simple réfutation empirique. Ils en firent l'enjeu de "théories de l'utilité non-espérée" qu'ils développaient de même sous le seul angle empirique. Dans sa partie philosophique, l'article cherche à évaluer ce déplacement d'interprétation. D'un certain côté, les théoriciens de la décision firent bien de libérer leur travail expérimental des complications du normatif, car ils parvinrent ainsi à des résultats éclairants : l'hypothèse de l'utilité espérée était empiriquement réfutée, la responsabilité principale en revenait à l'axiome d'indépendance de von Neumann-Morgenstern, et l'étape suivante était de transformer adéquatement cet axiome. D'un autre côté, ils eurent tort de négliger un trait fondamental de leur domaine : les comportements observés ne sont informatifs que si les agents sont prêts à les assumer de manière réfléchie, c'est-à-dire à leur prêter une certaine valeur normative. D'après la reconstruction proposée ici, Allais ne voulait faire porter les expériences de choix que sur des sujets rationnels, ou bien sélectionnés au départ, ou bien révélés comme tels par l'expérience. L'article développe ces intuitions en revenant aux travaux des années 1970, aujourd'hui très peu connus, qui, sous l'influence d'Allais, proposèrent des traductions expérimentales de la rationalité, et il invite finalement la théorie de la décision à diversifier ses méthodes en s'inspirant de ces tentatives originales. Few problems in decision theory have raised more persisting interest than the Allais paradox. It appears that sufficiently many brilliant works have addressed it from within decision theory proper for history and philosophy of science now to enter stage. In its historical side, the paper recounts the paradox as it arose, i.e., in 1952, at a Paris conference attended by the main decision theorists of the time. They had drawn renewed confidence in expected utility theory (EUT) from the way von Neumann and Morgenstern had axiomatized it in 1947, and Allais devised his puzzle precisely to shaken their confidence. The issues between the two camps were normative, but they became lost in the developments of the 1980s that belatedly brought fame to the "Allais paradox". These works restricted the paradox to be a straightforward empirical refutation, turning it into a stake of also exclusively empirically oriented non-EU theories. In its philosophical vein, the paper tries to evaluate this shift of interpretation. To an extent, decision theorists were right because their experimental work was thus freed from a major complication and amenable to illuminating results: EUT was empirically refuted, the independence axiom of von Neumann and Morgentern was the main culprit, and the next theoretical stage was to modify this axiom appropriately. However, they were also wrong in not addressing an essential feature of their field, i.e., that observed behaviour is informative only if agents are prepared to endorse it reflectingly, i.e., to endow it with some normative value. As reconstructed here, Allais meant to reserve choice experiments to rational subjects, who were either selected at the outset, or identified as such by the experimental results. The paper tries to flesh out Allais's intuitions by turning to by now little known works of the 1970s, which under his influence provided experimental renderings of rationality, and it eventually suggests that decision theory might diversify its methods by taking inspiration from these original attempts.

How do we, as management researchers, develop novel theoretical contributions, and potentially break new ground, in management studies? To address this question, we review previous methodological work on theorizing and advance a typology of the reasoning processes that underlie theoretical contributions and significant advances in management studies. This typology consist of various types of analogical and counterfactual reasoning that range from focused thought experiments aimed at prodding existing theory in the direction of alternative assumptions, constructs and hypotheses to more expansive efforts around inducing new theoretical models and alternative explanations. With this typology we detail the mechanisms behind the formation of novel theoretical contributions and we illustrate the currency of our typology with a review of twenty-four major theoretical breakthroughs in management studies. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the implications of this typology for our collective efforts in building, elaborating and expanding theory in management studies.

International audience; We advocate for more tolerance in the manner we collectively address categories and categorization in our research. Drawing on the prototype view, organizational scholars have provided a 'disciplining' framework to explain how category membership shapes, impacts, and limits organizational success. By stretching the existing straightjacket of scholarship on categories, we point to other useful conceptualizations of categories - i.e. the causal-model and the goal-based approaches of categorization - and propose that depending on situational circumstances, and beyond a disciplining exercise, categories involve a cognitive test of congruence and a goal satisfying calculus. Unsettling the current consensus about categorical imperatives and market discipline, we suggest also that audiences may tolerate more often than previously thought organizations that blend, span, and stretch categories. We derive implications for research about multi-category membership and mediation in markets, and suggest ways in which work on the theme of categories in the strategy, entrepreneurship, and managerial cognition literatures can be enriched.