Vignette d'image

Reuter, Emmanuelle

Nom
Reuter, Emmanuelle
Affiliation principale
Site web
Fonction
Professeure assistante en management de l'innovation
Email
emmanuelle.reuter@unine.ch
Identifiants
https://libra.unine.ch/handle/123456789/1230
_
0000-0002-1107-414X

Résultat de la recherche

Filtres

2
2
Réinitialiser les filtres

Paramètres

Voici les éléments 1 - 2 sur 2
  • Publication
    Métadonnées seulement
    Corporate Strategies to Defend Social Irresponsibility: A Typology of Symbolic and Substantive Tactics
    (Cham: Springer, 2019)
    Reuter, Emmanuelle 
    ;
    Ueberbacher, Florian
    Social responsibility issues arise as stakeholders perceive and articulate a mismatch between the organization’s current way of functioning and the existing expectations of what socially responsible or normatively appropriate behavior would be. While such issues may exist in any organization, when they become salient, they have the potential to have fundamentally negative consequences for organizations, for instance, declining sales, increased costs of capital, negative reputation, loss of partner support, etc. Much prior research uncovered how organizations manage the saliency of social responsibility issues in social responsibility–congruent ways, that is, by creating positive externalities for society. In this chapter, we address how organizations act to manipulate the saliency of stakeholders’ perceptions by remaining “socially irresponsible.” We argue that organizations may skillfully use different types of impression management strategies—proactive discursive defense, proactive material defense, reactive discursive defense, reactive material defense—to avert the salience of social responsibility issues. These strategies are illustrated with case examples.
  • Publication
    Métadonnées seulement
    Quantitative methods in strategy-as-practice research
    (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)
    Laamanen, Tomi
    ;
    Reuter, Emmanuelle 
    ;
    Schimmer, Markus
    ;
    Ueberbacher, Florian
    ;
    WelchGuerra, Xena
    While most of the prior work in the strategy-as-practice research stream has been conceptual or qualitative in nature, there is also potential in researching strategy practices quantitatively. There are a number of different benefits that can be gained in comparison to a solely qualitative research orientation. Qualitative methods have advanced the strategic management field with groundbreaking theoretical and empirical insights. Their importance in theory-building is uncontestable, as demonstrated by some of the highly influential qualitative articles from our field (for example, Barley 1986; Brown and Eisenhardt 1997; Burgelman 1983b). Despite these advantages, however, the reliance on a single dominant research method can also be constraining. A broader range of methods may be useful in examining the macro-level patterns emerging from the micro-level data, for establishing boundary conditions or in showing that the qualitative insights also have broader generalizability (Edmondson and McManus 2007). Moreover, the innovative use of quantitative methods could also lead to the emergence of novel insights that might not be achievable with purely qualitative research designs. Strategy-as-practice research has historically had a strong reliance on qualitative data and related research designs in order to go deeper in understanding the micro-level strategy practices that the dominating quantitative research methods could not capture. Bacause of this important mission, an epistemic culture has emerged around the study of strategy practices over time. The term ‘epistemic culture’ refers to how a research community generates knowledge. It is an implicit property, and can be inferred from the dominant research practices at work in a research stream (Knorr Cetina 1999). The epistemic culture of strategy-as-practice research has been strongly influenced by sociological practice theory, in which the use of qualitative research methods has been particularly prominent. While the epistemic culture of a research stream plays a strong role in the choice of a research method, we argue that the maturity of the research focus should also drive decisions on the choice of appropriate research methods. For example, the life cycle perspective distinguishes early, intermediate and mature stages in a research field's life cycle (Edmondson and McManus 2007): At the early stage of a new research field, theory and paradigm development tend to favour inductive theory-building. This stage is typically associated with qualitative methods to develop the foundational concepts and relationships.