PR 00148: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
| Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
== Introduction == | |||
The view of the actors involved in the innovation process has shifted over the last few decades. Instead of relying solely on internal business knowledge more heterogeneous knowledge resources are favoured and sought for in the innovation process (Chesbrough 2003; Von Hippel 2010; Huizingh 2011). | |||
{{Project config}} | Over the last decades academics have adopted non-positivist perspectives towards the development of innovations (Bijker et al. 1997; Orlikowski 2000; Von Hippel 2010; Vargo et al. 2015). In the context of this doctoral thesis, a non-positivist approach refers to the post positivist paradigm. This assumes a critical realist ontology (i.e. truth is objective though influenced by human bias) and a modified objectivist epistemology (i.e. knowledge is based upon human conjectures) (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). In particular it is argued is this research value is constructed through human interactions (Wieland et al. 2012; Akaka and Vargo 2014). While value is unique, phenomenological and determined by the individual actors in the social innovation process (Vargo and Lusch 2008), communalities occur to the given meaning of the co-created value. In this vein, academics posit the co-creation of innovation and thus value occurs within a broader social setting (Stirling 2007). Hence, social innovation is constructed by the unique understandings of the collective whole (Stake 1995). | ||
Based on this rationale, it is evident the post positivist stance could meaningfully address the interactions taking place in the social innovation process (Harrisson et al. 2009). Consequently, a '''''post positivist approach is adopted as the stance''''' for this study. The post positivist worldview embraces qualitative approaches and methodologies (Reimer 1996). Qualitative research can be defined as a variety of interpretative approaches which seek to describe, decode, translate or come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). It implies a focus on ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions of a topic (Yin 2003) and concentrates on human behaviour, occurrences, and events to understand actions, problems and processes in a social context (Bryman and Bell 2011). Given the exploratory nature of this research and the social construction of value in social innovation a qualitative methodology is adopted (Yin 2014). | |||
In line with the post positivist epistemology, this doctoral thesis adopts the '''''case study approach'''''. The case study approach has been understood as a strategy of inquiry where the researcher puts emphasises on in depth exploration of a particular program, event, activity, process, or one of more individuals (Stake 1995). The case study approach is typically utilised when research is still in its early, formative stage (Benbasat et al. 1987) over which the researcher has little to no control (Yin 2014) and is perceived as an ideal approach when a holistic and in depth exploration is needed (Feagin et al. 1991). Social innovation in rural communities as the context of this research is a contemporary event. The boundaries between these contemporary phenomenon and the context are blurry and therefore the analysis of this is best conducted within its real life context through the case study approach (Benbasat et al. 1987). Further, this approach is recognised as well-suited for research focussing on understanding the interaction in social contexts (Darke et al. 1998). Figure ... depicts the research philosophy of this doctoral thesis. {{Project config}} | |||
{{Project | {{Project | ||
|Supercontext=PR SSM 00128 | |Supercontext=PR SSM 00128 | ||
Versie van 11 jul 2017 14:00
Introduction
The view of the actors involved in the innovation process has shifted over the last few decades. Instead of relying solely on internal business knowledge more heterogeneous knowledge resources are favoured and sought for in the innovation process (Chesbrough 2003; Von Hippel 2010; Huizingh 2011).
Over the last decades academics have adopted non-positivist perspectives towards the development of innovations (Bijker et al. 1997; Orlikowski 2000; Von Hippel 2010; Vargo et al. 2015). In the context of this doctoral thesis, a non-positivist approach refers to the post positivist paradigm. This assumes a critical realist ontology (i.e. truth is objective though influenced by human bias) and a modified objectivist epistemology (i.e. knowledge is based upon human conjectures) (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). In particular it is argued is this research value is constructed through human interactions (Wieland et al. 2012; Akaka and Vargo 2014). While value is unique, phenomenological and determined by the individual actors in the social innovation process (Vargo and Lusch 2008), communalities occur to the given meaning of the co-created value. In this vein, academics posit the co-creation of innovation and thus value occurs within a broader social setting (Stirling 2007). Hence, social innovation is constructed by the unique understandings of the collective whole (Stake 1995).
Based on this rationale, it is evident the post positivist stance could meaningfully address the interactions taking place in the social innovation process (Harrisson et al. 2009). Consequently, a post positivist approach is adopted as the stance for this study. The post positivist worldview embraces qualitative approaches and methodologies (Reimer 1996). Qualitative research can be defined as a variety of interpretative approaches which seek to describe, decode, translate or come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world (Easterby-Smith et al. 2002). It implies a focus on ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions of a topic (Yin 2003) and concentrates on human behaviour, occurrences, and events to understand actions, problems and processes in a social context (Bryman and Bell 2011). Given the exploratory nature of this research and the social construction of value in social innovation a qualitative methodology is adopted (Yin 2014).
In line with the post positivist epistemology, this doctoral thesis adopts the case study approach. The case study approach has been understood as a strategy of inquiry where the researcher puts emphasises on in depth exploration of a particular program, event, activity, process, or one of more individuals (Stake 1995). The case study approach is typically utilised when research is still in its early, formative stage (Benbasat et al. 1987) over which the researcher has little to no control (Yin 2014) and is perceived as an ideal approach when a holistic and in depth exploration is needed (Feagin et al. 1991). Social innovation in rural communities as the context of this research is a contemporary event. The boundaries between these contemporary phenomenon and the context are blurry and therefore the analysis of this is best conducted within its real life context through the case study approach (Benbasat et al. 1987). Further, this approach is recognised as well-suited for research focussing on understanding the interaction in social contexts (Darke et al. 1998). Figure ... depicts the research philosophy of this doctoral thesis.