Search results

Patriotism is often described as the “love of country” that individuals display in the acclamation of their national community. Despite the prominence of this sentiment in various societies around the world, organizational research on patriotism is largely absent. This omission is surprising because entrepreneurs, human resource (HR) divisions, and firms frequently embrace both patriotism and patriotic organizational practices. These procedures include (among other interventions) national symbol embracing, HR practices targeted toward military members and first responders, the adulation of patriots and celebration of patriotic events, and patriotic-oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, the authors argue that research on HR management and organization studies will likely be further enhanced with a deeper understanding of the national obligation that can spur employee productivity and loyalty. In an attempt to jumpstart the collective understanding of this phenomenon, the authors explore the antecedents of patriotic organizational practices, namely, the effects of founder orientation, employee dispersion, and firm strategy. It is suggested that HR practices such as these lead to a patriotic organizational image, which in turn impacts investor, customer, and employee responses. Notably, the effect of a patriotic organizational image on firm-related outcomes is largely contingent on how it fits with the patriotic views of other stakeholders, such as investors, customers, and employees. After outlining this model, the authors then present a thought experiment of how this model may appear in action. The authors then discuss ways the field can move forward in studying patriotism in HR management and organizational contexts by outlining several future directions that span multiple levels (i.e., micro and macro). Taken together, in this chapter, the authors introduce a conversation of something quite prevalent and largely unheeded – the patriotic organization.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new insights into the social impact of creative research methods.

Using the new methodology of cultural animation (CA), the authors highlight how knowledge can be co-produced between academics, community members and organisational practitioners. Drawing on the UK Connected Communities programme, the authors explore examples of immersive and performative techniques including arts and crafts, drama and poetry.

The authors showcase the practical and theoretical benefit of such exercises to generate impact and influence. Empirically, the authors demonstrate the potential of CA to bring together researchers and community members in useful partnerships that foster dialogical exchange. Theoretically, the authors extend and develop the value of American Pragmatism by highlighting how democratic, iterative and practical learning plays out through the materials, networks and processes of cultural animation.

Exploration of the examples leads us to propose and explore impact as a form of legacy which captures the temporal, processual and performative nature of knowledge sharing and co-production.

The methodology of CA is innovative and has not been tested widely to date although, as the authors illustrate, it is particularly useful for encouraging interaction between academics and the wider world by developing and nurturing interactions and relationships. It carries potential to contribute new insights to the theorisation and lived experience of organisation.

This paper aims to contribute to understandings of the dynamics of marketplace exclusion and explore the benefits of a performative approach to knowledge production.

Interactive documentary theatre is used to explore the pressing issue of marketplace exclusion in a deprived UK city. The authors present a series of three vignettes taken from the performance to explore the embodied and dialogical nature of performative knowledge production.

The performative mode of knowledge production has a series of advantages over the more traditional research approaches used in marketing. It is arguably more authentic, embodied and collaborative. However, this mode of research also has its challenges particularly in the interpretation and presentation of the data.

The paper highlights the implications of performative knowledge production for critical consumer learning. It also explores how the hitherto neglected concept of marketplace exclusion might bring together insights into the mechanics and outcomes of exclusion.

While theatrical and performative metaphors have been widely used to theorise interactions in the marketplace, as yet the possibility of using theatre as a form of inquiry within marketing has been largely neglected. Documentary theatre is revealing of the ways in which marketplace cultures can perpetuate social inequality. Involving local communities in the co-production of knowledge in this way gives them a voice in the policy arena not hitherto fully addressed in the marketing field. Similarly, marketplace exclusion as a concept has been sidelined in favour of marketplace discrimination and consumer vulnerability – the authors think it has the potential to bring these fields together in exploring the range of dynamics involved.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners. It does so by comparing the various models of academic-practitioner collaboration and introducing Dewey’s democratic experimentalism as a promising alternative.

The conceptual implications are drawn from an analysis and discussion of the literatures in the field of organizational knowledge production, co-production and Deweyan studies.

Democratic experimentalism offers a much needed platform for a collaborative relationship between academics and practitioners that leads to knowledge that is rigorous and relevant to practice.

While the current models of academic-practitioner collaboration provide mechanisms for knowledge co-production, the Dewey’s democratic experimentalism goes further to emphasize the nature of the relationship between academics and practitioners in such common endeavor to ensure that all of them are equal co-creators of knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to address four questions: what are the drawbacks of an over reliance on the objectivist tradition in culture in international business (CIB) scholarship? Is a shift from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic cultural research justified? What explains scholars’ hesitation in engaging in multi-paradigmatic studies? What arguments can we offer to convince them otherwise?

Informed by the critical perspective, this paper encourages a shift from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic cultural studies. Guided by an emancipatory interest, and treating the field of culture studies as a complex system, this paper offers an integrative complexity (IC) based argument in favor of multi-paradigmatic studies. It argues that multi-paradigmatic studies allow scholars to employ higher IC than mono-paradigmatic studies, resulting in more innovative research outputs.

While mono-paradigmatic studies can achieve either predictability of output or in-depth understanding of cultural phenomena, multi-paradigmatic studies are capable of attaining both. The authors illustrate this through the example of a recent multi-paradigmatic study.

This paper does not offer insights for operationalizing multi-paradigmatic research, nor does it address factors other than IC that may impede scholars from engaging in such studies.

Shifting from mono-paradigmatic to multi-paradigmatic studies will enable scholars to address questions hitherto left unaddressed in CIB literature, facilitate a better understanding of new organizational forms, and redress the power disequilibrium between different paradigmatic schools. Implications are also offered for the training of cultural researchers in business schools.

This paper is the first of its kind to relate IC to merits of multi-paradigmatic cultural studies.

The aim of this special issue is to bring together contributions from diverse perspectives interested in challenging the quantitative/qualitative divide within organisation and management research.

The papers in this special issue explore at a methodological or paradigmatic level (rather than at the level of particular research methods) the possible ways in which different research methodologies converge, diverge and overlap. Rather that asking questions about the validity and intrinsic value of certain methodologies, we are encouraged to shift gear towards assessing how useful these methodologies are in terms of carrying us from the world of practice to theory and vice‐versa. If methodologies help us to progress our thinking and our practices, they are “true” in a pragmatist sense. If they stall our thinking and do not influence in any way our practices, then they are probably untrue.

It is hoped that the papers presented in this special issue help us process our ideas and experiences in a progressive way, towards finding better, more robust ways of approaching our research practices.

Of course, it is for the reader to decide if this project has made an impact on their own thinking and practical endeavour but we remain convinced that the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is not productive and must be abandoned in favour of a heterodox and more pragmatic approach to methodology.

Interdisciplinary research allows us to broaden our sights and expand our theories. Yet, such research surfaces a number of challenges. We highlight three issues – superficiality, lack of focus, and consilience - and discuss how they can be addressed in interdisciplinary research. In particular, we focus on the implications for interdisciplinary work with paradox scholarship. We explore how these issues can be navigated as scholars bring together different epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies within interdisciplinary research, and illustrate our key points by drawing on extant work in paradox theory and on examples from this double volume. Our paper contributes to paradox scholarship, and to organizational theory more broadly, by offering practices about how to implement interdisciplinary research while also advancing our understanding about available research methods.

This chapter presents an affirmative and emancipatory postmodernism characterized by epistemological and methodological pluralism. Many narratives are to be preferred to just one, many styles of research are available and useful, and local, limited and fragmented research initiatives have contributions to make to our common enterprise. The chapter outlines postmodern ideas such as fluidity, deconstruction and pluralism; debunks misconceptions concerning postmodernism’s relationship to science, modernity and theorizing; and offers a four-step guide to those interested in postmodernizing a research area. The chapter ends with a call for transparency in theory and method, pursuit of nonobvious research ideas and pragmatic engagement with the world of practice.

The purpose of this paper is to show how research that is approached from multiple perspectives, using multiple methods, can help to illuminate the complex and contested nature of the purpose and practice of apprenticeship schemes in England. The author contends that understanding the various participants involved in the schemes helps to reveal how policy at the macro level is adapted at the micro level to suit different groups. The author argues that the usefulness in such an approach provides a greater understanding of the plurality of interests and needs at play within the scheme, opening up the apprenticeship scheme agenda to allow divergent voices to be heard.

This is a qualitative empirical paper which adopts a multi‐perspective, multi‐method approach.

The paper highlights a number of areas of contention between different stakeholders involved in the apprenticeship scheme that could affect the success of these schemes.

The author's aim is to demonstrate the use of a multi‐perspective, multi‐method approach as a way to generate research which takes into account the different experiences and agenda of stakeholders participating in apprenticeship schemes. It is envisaged that the paper will be of interest to readers interested in research methods and for those conducting research on young workers.