效能理论辩论:系统回顾与研究议程

IF 3 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Suzi Elen Ferreira Dias, Edson Sadao Iizuka, Eduardo Pinto Vilas Boas
{"title":"效能理论辩论:系统回顾与研究议程","authors":"Suzi Elen Ferreira Dias, Edson Sadao Iizuka, Eduardo Pinto Vilas Boas","doi":"10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to understand the theoretical discussion of effectuation since the seminal paper in 2001 and to propose an agenda for future studies.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nSystematic literature review and content analysis of 71 papers.\n\n\nFindings\nMost papers performed a replication of the concepts empirically, and few studies proposed to understand theoretical aspects of effectuation, among them, some authors presented theoretical advances to improve the approach and others participated in an ongoing debate that shows there is no consensus on whether the approach is theory or if considered, appears to be under construction at a rudimentary level or being questioned.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe method requires authors to make choices, so the database used and the criteria defined for searching papers that were analyzed are the main limitations of this research.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe authors suggest that researchers, teachers and practitioners use effectuation analytically and reflectively.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe authors present and analyze the current theoretical debate on effectuation. Results suggest the need for new discussions about the concepts, as well as new theoretical efforts of the researchers to analyze the potentialities and limitations of this approach.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nAmong empirical and applied research, with replications of the concepts of effectuation, this research contributes to a theoretical discussion based on a systematic literature review, seeking to bring new reflections about this approach. Additionally, the authors present an agenda of theoretical gaps for the development of future research.\n","PeriodicalId":42220,"journal":{"name":"Innovation & Management Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectuation theoretical debate: systematic review and research agenda\",\"authors\":\"Suzi Elen Ferreira Dias, Edson Sadao Iizuka, Eduardo Pinto Vilas Boas\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this paper is to understand the theoretical discussion of effectuation since the seminal paper in 2001 and to propose an agenda for future studies.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nSystematic literature review and content analysis of 71 papers.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nMost papers performed a replication of the concepts empirically, and few studies proposed to understand theoretical aspects of effectuation, among them, some authors presented theoretical advances to improve the approach and others participated in an ongoing debate that shows there is no consensus on whether the approach is theory or if considered, appears to be under construction at a rudimentary level or being questioned.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe method requires authors to make choices, so the database used and the criteria defined for searching papers that were analyzed are the main limitations of this research.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe authors suggest that researchers, teachers and practitioners use effectuation analytically and reflectively.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThe authors present and analyze the current theoretical debate on effectuation. Results suggest the need for new discussions about the concepts, as well as new theoretical efforts of the researchers to analyze the potentialities and limitations of this approach.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nAmong empirical and applied research, with replications of the concepts of effectuation, this research contributes to a theoretical discussion based on a systematic literature review, seeking to bring new reflections about this approach. Additionally, the authors present an agenda of theoretical gaps for the development of future research.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":42220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovation & Management Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovation & Management Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation & Management Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/inmr-12-2018-0094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

目的本论文旨在了解自2001年这篇开创性论文以来对有效性的理论讨论,并为未来的研究提出一个议程。设计/方法论/方法71篇论文的系统文献综述和内容分析。发现大多数论文都从经验上复制了这些概念,很少有研究提出要理解效果的理论方面,其中,一些作者提出了改进该方法的理论进展,另一些作者参与了一场正在进行的辩论,这场辩论表明,对于该方法是否是理论或是否被考虑,似乎处于初级建设阶段或受到质疑。研究局限性/含义该方法需要作者做出选择,因此所使用的数据库和定义的搜索分析论文的标准是本研究的主要局限性。实际含义作者建议研究人员、教师和从业者分析和反思地使用效果。社会含义作者提出并分析了当前关于效果的理论争论。研究结果表明,需要对这些概念进行新的讨论,研究人员也需要在理论上做出新的努力来分析这种方法的潜力和局限性。独创性/价值在实证和应用研究中,通过复制有效性的概念,本研究有助于在系统文献综述的基础上进行理论讨论,试图对这种方法进行新的思考。此外,作者还为未来研究的发展提出了一个理论空白的议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectuation theoretical debate: systematic review and research agenda
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the theoretical discussion of effectuation since the seminal paper in 2001 and to propose an agenda for future studies. Design/methodology/approach Systematic literature review and content analysis of 71 papers. Findings Most papers performed a replication of the concepts empirically, and few studies proposed to understand theoretical aspects of effectuation, among them, some authors presented theoretical advances to improve the approach and others participated in an ongoing debate that shows there is no consensus on whether the approach is theory or if considered, appears to be under construction at a rudimentary level or being questioned. Research limitations/implications The method requires authors to make choices, so the database used and the criteria defined for searching papers that were analyzed are the main limitations of this research. Practical implications The authors suggest that researchers, teachers and practitioners use effectuation analytically and reflectively. Social implications The authors present and analyze the current theoretical debate on effectuation. Results suggest the need for new discussions about the concepts, as well as new theoretical efforts of the researchers to analyze the potentialities and limitations of this approach. Originality/value Among empirical and applied research, with replications of the concepts of effectuation, this research contributes to a theoretical discussion based on a systematic literature review, seeking to bring new reflections about this approach. Additionally, the authors present an agenda of theoretical gaps for the development of future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信