A formula of consensus in theoretical descriptions of the reality spectrum: The unification of conceptual “halves”

Abstract

Purpose

The topic of this paper strikes the golden mean rather than the extreme ones. The purpose is to describe frameworks and processes that strive to balance and unite conceptual opposites (so‐called “halves”) of the reality spectrum in different areas of literature.

Design/methodology/approach

Two related frames of reference in the area of inventory management are used to underpin and illustrate the frameworks and the processes to identify and manage conceptual halves in theoretical descriptions of the reality spectrum.

Findings

The tendency to focus on just halves (or lesser pieces) of the reality spectrum in theoretical descriptions of intangibles derived from research efforts creates a kind of blinkers‐syndrome, which is not enough to achieve a thorough understanding of the reality spectrum at hand.

Research limitations/implications

Current and forthcoming theoretical descriptions of intangibles would benefit from paying attention to the underlying message transmitted through the formula of consensus. It is important to remember that the formula of consensus is not only restricted to the counterparts, but also stresses the importance of the reality spectrum between conceptual halves in terms of the compatibility and the complement between the counterparts.

Originality/value

There are numerous halves in theoretical descriptions of the reality spectrum that are related to one another in areas such as constructs, strategies, perspectives, approaches, methodologies and principles. A formula of consensus is therefore introduced which consists of three ingredients (i.e. counterview; compatibility; and complement). It contributes to bridging the dissension of conceptual halves over time and across contexts in theoretical descriptions of the reality spectrum.

Citation

Svensson, G. (2007), "A formula of consensus in theoretical descriptions of the reality spectrum: The unification of conceptual “halves”", European Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 248-256. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340710746491