Read The Latest Issue of World Futures Review!

Read The Latest Issue of World Futures Review!

World Futures Review (WFR) is the top forum for all who are professionally involved in exploring trends and alternatives for society. This dynamic quarterly publication offers valuable insight on the theoretical, research and practical issues confronting those interested in futures research. Along with interviews with leading futures practitioners, WFR publishes important new foresight literature.

This issue features special research on foresight education and features research inter sectional research with history, tourism, and education. Below are some abstracts from the issue:

Teaching the Future of Technology in the History Classroom: A Case Study

This article will describe how historians can teach the future of technology. Historians need not alter their traditional methods of historical inquiry to teach the future, and indeed the history classroom is a natural site for foresight education. Historical inquiry begins with questions, and futuring similarly begins with asking the right questions. The historian seeks out evidence, and futurists as well identify drivers and blockers, considering how these drivers and blockers will interact with each other. In contrast to social scientists, historians work with imperfect or incomplete information, an apt description of the state of our evidence about the future. In a manner similar to historians, futurists interpret and draw inferences from evidence. After the research an analysis of the evidence is complete, the historian/futurist writes representations. This article will describe how I employed the historical method to teach the future of technology in a history research seminar, the results produced by the students, and ways that the study of the future can be situated in the history classroom.

Beyond Futures: Designing Futures by Educating Future Designers

The goal in design is to plan and create artifacts, including objects, communication, and services. These are meant to be used or applied in an unknown future. Therefore, design is part of a process shaping the future, yet implications are rarely considered and become blind spots. The essay is a pledge to integrate the concept of futures and foresight methododology into the education of designers to give them a better understanding of how to deal with change and uncertainty. It may increase designers’ sensitivity of the impact their work may have in the future and push their creativity by broadening their view looking at different future scenarios. The essay starts by presenting the facets that design encompasses, putting it into a historical context, and explaining some educational concepts. Ultimately, the author suggests a didactic approach that she has applied in a futures studies introductory course for graduate students of architecture at the Münster School of Architecture (MSA) in Germany. It is based mainly on practice-oriented exercises and assignments. This includes an approach based on the author’s approach to combine the generic design process used in research through design – involving the phases of analysis, projection and synthesis (APS) – with the concept of futures and tools used in foresight methodology.

Reflective Thoughts on Teaching the Future of Tourism

This reflective paper considers how Dr. Ian Yeoman teaches futures studies and scenario planning to tourism students across several undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. It is based on his teaching philosophy of visualization, authenticity, problem-based learning, scaffolding, and his understanding of how students negotiate their own learning. The paper examines the approach taken in three papers, where Yeoman is the primary lecturer. As part of the bachelor of tourism management degree, two papers are taught. TOUR104 is a first-year introductory paper addressing how the drivers and trends in the macro-environment influence tourism from a political, economic, social, technology, and environmental perspective. TOUR301 is a third-year paper that aims to help students develop the skills and knowledge necessary to understand and critically analyze tourism public policy, planning, and processes primarily within New Zealand. TOUR413 is a scenario planning paper, applied in a tourism context and taught to students in postgraduate programs. The contribution this paper makes is in its demonstration of the link between teaching philosophy and student learning, the challenges students encounter with futures thinking in a problem-based learning environment and the evolution of the papers.

To submit to the journal click here!

Interested in being involved with the journal? Check out the most recent Call for Editor!

What Kind of Mindset Must Companies have to Create Great Customer Service?

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Benjamin Schneider of the University of Maryland and David E. Bowen of the Thunderbird School of Global Management . They recently published an article in Journal of Service Research entitled “Perspectives on the Organizational Context of Frontlines: A Commentary,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reflect on this research:]

How important is it for customers to have a positive experience when dealing with a company? The evidence from all manner of research disciplines (Psychology, Management, and Marketing) and reports from the field by consultants and managers is that this encounter is absolutely critical. In the field of services marketing the place where this encounter happens is called the “organizational frontlines.” The frontlines refers to everything that occurs when the customer is in contact with the company: the people, the technology, the facilities and the processes. Research on organizational frontlines has focused in on the immediate contact of the customer with the company, especially contact with employees who serve them and the technology that serves them. This research reveals that knowledgeable and skilled service employees and technology that is accurate, speedy and easy to use play important roles in meeting customer expectations and producing customer satisfaction and loyalty.

This commentary on a special issue of the Journal of Service Research that was about organizational frontlines asks the following question: What kind of company context produces the employees and the technology that meets customers’ expectations and satisfies them? That is, given the importance of what happens at the frontlines the commentary considers what companies can do to ensure that what happens there is maximally positive. So, what can companies do?

We propose that companies must have the following mind-sets to create a context in which customers’ experience at the frontlines is optimal:

1. They must have a socio-technical systems mind-set. Socio-technical systems understand that there is no such thing as technology that stands alone. A socio-technical mind-set ensures that those who design and implement technology have those who use it (employees) and those who are served by it (customers) as there focus.

2. They must have a service climate mind set. A service climate mind-set is created in companies when HR, Marketing and Operations all work together to ensure that the people, the products/services, and the technology of a company all focus in on producing a positive customer experience. These functions can’t be silos because they all impact customers. These functions work together well when there is an internal service mind-set as well: “We help each other produce for our customers.”

3. They must have a strong service HR systems mind-set. Employees who deal immediately with customers must be only one focus of HR; as noted earlier, a service mind-set is critical also in those who design and implement technology and, we would add, those who design products and services.

4. They must have a multi-level mind-set. Companies must see themselves as containing three important levels: A managerial level, an employee level and a customer level. Thus, companies can’t divorce the customer from the company and executives can’t divorce employees from their strategies. In service organizations these different levels are in continuous interaction—at least in the best such companies.

Our proposal is that, while it is very important to focus on what happens in the immediate encounter at the company frontlines, there must also be focus on the context that produces what happens there. Our commentary addresses critical elements of that context and the mind-sets management must have if they wish to deliver excellent service.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the journal and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

ASQ Improving Evidence Presentation: Resources and Tools

[The following post is re-blogged from the ASQ Blog. Click here to view the original article.]

This is a post that contains resources and tools to improve evidence presentation, echoing one of ASQ’s most important initiatives. The ASQ blog will keep updating the post and we welcome crowdsourcing and sharing of ideas from management scholars all around the world. Get in touch with asqblog@gmail.com to share your thoughts!

What is ASQ Improving Evidence Presentation initiative?(#ASQEvidencePresentation)

As you have seen in the “From the Editor” that Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) published in June 2017, the editors of ASQ strongly encourage that authors show the data in their manuscripts, by using graphical approaches to give an indication of the most important features of the data and their theoretical explanation before estimating models. Preferably this should be done as early as the introduction in order to spur the reader’s interest and give an indication of why the paper is valuable. Such use of graphical methods is rare in organizational theory and management research more generally, so we will gradually introduce methods of graphical analysis that can be used by researchers.

Graphical methods for showing the data are integrated into Stata, the most common software used by management researchers, and the Stata commands offer a good blend of simplicity and flexibility. Nevertheless, they need some training, especially because statistical training is model-focused in many schools, and highly variable in how well graphical methods are taught. New analytical tools like R and Python are also on the rise and increasingly used to visualize data, which requires, even more, training and knowledge sharing. Here we collaborate with the ASQ blog to home a resource center where tools and techniques to improve evidence presentation are crowdsourced and curated. The resource center will be updated, and editors of ASQ will contribute examples with data and do-files to demonstrate evidence presentation. We hope that the resource center will help improve the way you present evidence in your research.

—-Henrich Greve, the Editor of Administrative Science Quarterly

ASQ paper development workshop materials

2017 ASQ paper development workshop, AOM in Atlanta

Materials on importance of evidence presentation

An Economist’s Guide of Visualising Data, written by Jonathan A. Schwabish (2014) in Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1): 209–234

Editor’s examples

why indie books sell well, an evidence presentation example based on Greve & Song (2017), “Amazon Warrior: How a Platform Can Restructure Industry Power and Ecology.” Data and do-file are available.

Tools using Stata

  1. introduction to some important methods including scatterplots, lineplots, bar graphs, box plots, and kernel (full distribution) plots.
  2. example of more advanced programming, which is needed because stata does not (yet) have a simple way of showing a grouped bar graph with error bars, which is an important graph for taking a first look at group differences.
  3. introduction to spmap, an add-on procedure for producing mapped data displays. Displaying statistics on a map can be very helpful for any kind of research involving spatial relations, before the add-on such mapping required changing to different software and exporting data, which is both time consuming and a potential source of errors.
  4. introduction to the coefplot function, a graphical display of coefficient magnitudes. This is a very informative way of giving a comparative view of a full regression model, or parts of it, in a compact graph. This routine has a very flexible and intriguing set of plots as displayed on this link.

Psychological Science Seeking Preregistered Replications

 [The following post is re-blogged from Method Space. Click here to view the original article.]

keys-2114366_640_opt

Making a statement in the ongoing “replication” or “reproducibility crisis,” the journal Psychological Science will now accept a special class of research–based papers that report on attempts to re-create experiments that had influential findings and that were first published in Psychological Science.
This new category of “preregistered direct replications,” or PDRs, aims “to create conditions that experts agree test the same hypotheses in essentially the same way as the original study,” explained D. Stephen Lindsay, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Victoria and editor of Psychological Science.

That psychology in particular is in need of a replication tonic has been widely accepted. “To me,” Jim Grange, a senior lecturer in psychology at Keele University, wrote last year, “it is clear that there is a reproducibility crisis in psychological science, and across all sciences. Murmurings of low reproducibility began in 2011 – the ‘year of horrors’ for psychology – with a high profile fraud case. But since then, The Open Science Collaboration has published the findings of a large-scale effort to closely replicate 100 studies in psychology. Only 36 percent of them could be replicated.”

Under the PDR description, the ‘direct’ part of the replication rubric refers to sticking to the original methodology as closely as possible. “It is impossible to conduct a study twice in exactly the same way,” Lindsay said in a letter announcing the PDRs, “and doing so would not always be desirable (e.g., often it would be better to test a larger number of subjects than in the original study; if the original study included some problematic items or unclear instructions, it is probably best to correct those shortcomings; if the original and replication studies were conducted in different cultural contexts then it may be appropriate to change surface-level aspects of the procedure).”

It is expected, Lindsay said, that the author of the target piece will be invited to provide a review of the replication, along with at least two independent experts. And in keeping with the ‘preregistered’ aspect of the PDR, researchers are asked to submit proposals for review before data collection begins. “A virtue of pre-data-collection submissions is that decisions about scientific merit are independent of how the results come out,” he said. “Another advantage is that reviewers and the editor have an opportunity to improve a study before it is conducted. We may therefore at some point in the future require that PDRs be submitted as proposals prior to data collection.  But for now we will also consider PDRs that have already been conducted if they were preregistered.” And in keeping with an earlier announcement also focused on transparency, Lindsay said would-be authors are asked to provide the data they use in their published analysis to reviewers.

Lindsay made clear that while the replication needed to leverage an article that originally appeared in Psychological Science, merely having appeared there was not sufficient for a PDR. “The primary criterion is general theoretical significance,” he emphasized.

Still, he said, the journal – which takes its lumps from some observers like Andrew Gelman – has a responsibility to not turn its back on what it’s published. “One of the motivations for adding PDRs is the belief that a journal is responsible for the works it publishes (as per Sanjay Srivastava’s ‘Pottery Barn rule’ blog post). That said,” he continued, “our goal is not to publish ‘gotchas!’ Rather, inviting PDRs is one of many steps taken to increase the extent to which this journal contributes to efforts to make psychology a more cumulative science.”

Regardless with whether a replication confirms or question the original findings, the outcomes from the PDRs will be “valuable and informative.” He cited a 2009 column by then Association for Psychological Science President Walter Mischel which noted “replications sometimes yield more nuanced results that spark new hypotheses and contribute to the elaboration of psychological theories.”

The PDRs will launch with a replication of a 2008 an fMRI study Psychological Science published in 2008, said journal editor Steve Lindsay. That original study, conducted by William A. Cunningham, Jay J. Van Bavel and Ingrid R. Johnsen, detailed evidence that processing goals can modulate activity in the amygdala, a part of the brain that influences memory, emotions and decision-making. The new article explains how the University of Denver’s Kateri McRae and the University of California, Los Angeles’ Daniel Lumian conducted a high-powered replication of that experiment — in consultation with Cunningham and Van Bavel – and in the process replicated the original’s central finding.

“This article,” said Lindsay, “is a fine model of a preregistered direct replication,” in part because of its greater statistical power and multiple converging analyses compared to the original.

Lindsay said PDRs are not the same as the registered replication reports that have appeared in the sister journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science, and which along with other multi-lab empirical papers will appear in the new journal, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.

The Evolution and Prospects of Service-Dominant Logic Research

[We’re pleased to welcome author Dr. Ralf Wilden of Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Australia. Dr. Wilden recently published an article in the Journal of Service Research entitled “The Evolution and Prospects of Service-dominant Logic Research: An Investigation of Past, Present, and Future Research,” which is currently free to read for a limited time.” Below, Dr. Wilden reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

02JSR13_Covers.inddService innovation is a driving force of economic growth in developed economies. Large corporations, such as BMW and IBM, increasingly define their business as service centric. For example, the BMW Group has moved away from defining their value proposition being focused on cars and motorcycles to positioning themselves as a mobility provider, thus moving away from a product-centered to service-centered narrative. The ‘servitization’ of traditional business models converges with a growing academic discourse around the emergence and evolution of the so-called ‘service-dominant logic’. Ongoing studies in this area explore the value of service in dynamic exchange systems and how managers are responding to or guided by ideas that 1) service forms the basis of all economic exchange, 2) value is always co-created between relevant actors, and 3) so-called operant resources are central to value co-creation.

In a recent study in the Journal of Service Research, an international team of researchers studied existing research to uncover core concepts and thematic shifts in the development of new knowledge in this field. More specifically, they studied how service-dominant logic advances the understanding of how value is created and service is innovated in dynamic service ecosystems. Based on a citation analyses and text mining of more than 300 key articles, the authors identify how service-dominant logic bridges traditional service research (e.g., regarding satisfaction, quality and customer experiences) with strategic and systems views. However, looking at the evolution of service-dominant logic research over time, it appears focus on strategic research has waned. Thus, the authors argue future studies should draw on several specific research areas to develop frameworks to aid managers in strategically thinking about service design and innovation.

The results from this study verify service-dominant logic is highly influential in areas such as customer engagement and value cocreation. An underlying shift towards social and systemic perspectives is also evident. However, many valuable insights emerging from the wealth of relevant studies have not yet impacted research regarding managerial decision-making and strategy development on a large scale. Furthermore, the authors identify the need to develop a stronger understanding of the way service-dominant logic can be used to inform how managerial actions and social and cultural practices influence and are influenced by a wider service ecosystem. For example, Ralf Wilden says “the way organizations engage in innovation-related activities has changed from a firm-centric model to a model that stresses the importance of knowledge in-flows and out-flows across organizational boundaries.” He adds, “despite the commonly accepted importance of services in value creation activities our knowledge about the role of open innovation in service ecosystems is limited.” The authors further stress that service thinking has benefited from interdisciplinary research in the past. Moving forward, combining service-dominant research with organizational strategy insights in the area of open innovation, dynamic capabilities and microfoundations, together with social, cultural and systems theories, can lead to developing new knowledge regarding service and drive continual improvement in service design and innovation.

Visit the journal homepage to sign up for email alerts!

The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers

Get the latest insight on what editors are looking for in your submitted manuscript! SAGE Publishing is proud to feature the latest editorial from Family Business Review, entitled, “The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers.” This editorial is co-authored by James J. Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma and Jess Chua, and is currently free to read for a limited time.

Below, please find an excerpt from the editorial, shedding light on the necessary steps an author must face when preparing a manuscript that stands out:

The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.

Click here to read the full article. Don’t forget to sign up to receive email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Family Business Review!

Call for Proposals! Small Group Research: 2018 Review Issue

SGR_call2018.jpg

Small Group Research is currently accepting proposals regarding the 2018 Review Issue. Please view the full details about the submission process here, or by clicking on the image above.

Manuscripts are due:  May 30, 2017

Submissions should be made to SGR’s Manuscript Central website: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sgr, where authors will be required to set up an account.

Small Group Research (SGR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, is an international and interdisciplinary journal presenting research, theoretical advancements, and empirically supported applications with respect to all types of small groups. SGR, a leader in the field, addresses and connects three vital areas of study: the psychology of small groups, communication within small groups,and organizational behavior of small groups. This journal is a member of the Committee on Pubication Ethics (COPE).

Don’t forget to sign up for email notifications about the latest research through the journal homepage.