Capturing the Participants’ Voice: Using Causal Mapping Supported by Group Decision Software to Enhance Procedural Justice

  • Parmjit KaurEmail author
  • Ashley L. Carreras
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 315)


This paper examines the way in which causal mapping, aided by group decision software, adheres to the tenets of procedural justice. Causal mapping workshops utilise a dual facilitation process that enables the participants’ “voice” to be heard. We demonstrate how a causal mapping process of investigation surfaces authentic qualitative data by aligning the process of investigation with the principles of procedural justice as found in organisational justice literature. This is supported by a statistical analysis of the dimension of procedural justice using the responses of workshop participants.


Causal mapping Procedural justice Focus groups 


  1. 1.
    Banxia Reference Manual, Banxia software, Kendal (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bies, R.J., Moag, J.S.: Interactional justice; communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B., Bazermann, B.H. (eds.) Research on Negotiations in Organizations, vol. 1, pp. 43–55. JAI press, Greenwich (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blader, S.L., Tyler, T.R.: What constitutes fairness in work settings? a four- component model of procedural justice. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 13, 107–126 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calder, B.J.: Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research. J. Mark. Res. 14, 353–364 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carreras, A.L., Kaur, P.: Teaching problem structuring methods: improving understanding through meaningful learning. INFORMS Trans. Ed. 12(1) 20–30 (2011). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catterrall, M., Maclaren, P.: Focus groups in marketing research. In: Belk, R.W. (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Marketing. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chrzanowska, J.: Interviewing groups and individuals in qualitative market research. Sage, London (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colquitt, J.A., et al.: Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 12 years of organisational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3), 425–445 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colquitt, J.A., et al.: What is organizational justice? a historical overview. In: Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J. (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Justice, pp. 3–56. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hillsdale (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cortina, J.M.: What is coefficient alpha? an examination of the theory and applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 98–104 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eden, C.: Cognitive mapping. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 36, 1–13 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage, London (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis. Negot. 10, 119–140 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Page, K.: Strategic Management as Social Process in “Making Strategy”. Chap. 2. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E.: Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50(1), 25–32 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fern, E.F.: Advanced Focus Group Research. Sage Publications, London (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Folger, R., Cropanzano, R.: Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gordon, W.: Good Thinking: A Guide to Qualitative Research. Admap Publications, Henly-on-Thames (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hay, D., Kinchin, I., Lygo-Baker, S.: Making learning visible: the role of concept mapping in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 33(3), 259–311 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobs, E., et al.: Of practicalities and perspective: what is fair in group decision making? J. Soc. Issues 65(2), 383–407 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janis, I.L.: Group Think: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaner, S.: Promoting mutual understanding for effective collaboration in cross-functional groups with multiple stakeholders. In: Schuman, S. (ed.) The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best Practices from the Leading Organisation in Facilitation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaner, S.: Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kelly, G.A.: The Psychology of Personal Constructs: A theory of personality. Norton, New York (1955)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.A.: Procedural Justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strateg. Manag. J. 19(4), 323 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kovonosky, M.A.: Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business. J. Manag. 26(3), 489–563 (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leventhal, G.S., et al.: Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In: Minkula, G. (ed.) Justice and Social Interaction, pp. 167–218. Spinger, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R.: The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Plenum, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pidd, M.: Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Wiley, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenhead, J., Mingers, J.: Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shaw, D.: Journey making group workshops as a research tool. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57, 830–841 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thibaut, J., Walker, L.: Procedural Justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1975)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tyler, T.R., Blader, S.L.: Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioural Engagement. Taylor & Francis Group, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tyler, T.R., Blader, S.L.: The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7(4), 349–361 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Strategic Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and LawDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK

Personalised recommendations