Advertisement

General Discussion

  • Ann-Kathrin Veenendaal
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The phenomenon-focused analysis of the eight sports cases is concluded with a critical reflection of the research process including limitations and future directions.

References

  1. Anderson N, Potočnik K, Zhou J (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. J Manag 40(5):1297–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlile PR, Christensen CM (2004) The cycles of theory building in management research. Working Paper 05–057. Harvard Business School, Boston, https://www.hbs.edu
  3. Christgau J (1999) The origins of the jump shot: eight men who shook the world of basketball. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NEGoogle Scholar
  4. Corley KG, Gioia DA (2011) Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad Manag Rev 36(1):12–32.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):480–499.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elsbach KD, Stigliani I (2018) Design thinking and organizational culture: a review and framework for future research. J Manag 44(6):2274–2306.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317744252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fullerton RA (2011) Historical methodology: the perspective of a professionally trained historian turned marketer. J Hist Res Mark 3(4):436–448.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17557501111183608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunt SD (2013) The inductive realist model of theory generation: explaining the development of a theory of marketing ethics. AMS Rev 3(2):61–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-013-0040-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonsen K, Fendt J, Point S (2018) Convincing qualitative research: what constitutes persuasive writing? Organ Res Methods 21(1):30–67.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117706533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Makadok R, Burton R, Barney J (2018) A practical guide for making theory contributions in strategic management. Strateg Manag J 39(6):1530–1545.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nenonen S, Brodie RJ, Storbacka K, Peters LD (2017) Theorizing with managers: how to achieve both academic rigor and practical relevance? Eur J Mark 51(7/8):1130–1152.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Potočnik K, Anderson N (2016) A constructively critical review of change and innovation-related concepts: towards conceptual and operational clarity. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 25(4):481–494.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1176022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tellis GJ (2017) Interesting and impactful research: on phenomena, theory, and writing. J Acad Mark Sci 45(1):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0499-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tolbert PS, David RJ, Sine WD (2011) Studying choice and change: the intersection of institutional theory and entrepreneurship research. Organ Sci 22(5):1332–1344.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Zeng L, Proctor RW, Salvendy G (2011) Can traditional divergent thinking tests be trusted in measuring and predicting real-world creativity? Creat Res J 23(1):24–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.545713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Kathrin Veenendaal
    • 1
  1. 1.Steinbeis University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations