Research Framework

Scientific articles (paper 1-7), together with transfer articles (paper A-E), are arranged in the research framework (see Figure one). This figure illustrates the dimensions of the research perspective and the methodological approach.

Based on the differentiation, the framework comprises four areas explained in the following four chapters. In terms of the methodological approach, the framework differentiates between empirical research and conceptual research. Actor-centric and systemic are the distinctive dimensions for the research perspective. Those key distinctions and the underlying matrix are described in more detail hereafter. Figure one illustrates the author’s projects and arranges them in the research framework.

Figure 1. Research framework.

1.2.1.1METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Academic papers, no matter if empirical or conceptual, share a common objective: to create innovative knowledge by expanding on carefully selected sources (Jaakkola, 2020). To reach this goal, scholars need to evaluate the state of research and choose a methodological

approach that fits the individual project’s circumstances and information availability as well as accessibility. The methodological approach thereby guides how knowledge should be gathered. Following the theory of science, this thesis differentiates between conceptual and empirical research.

Conceptual research contributes to “bridge existing theories in interesting ways, link work across disciplines, provide multi-level insights, and broaden the scope of our thinking”

(Gilson & Goldberg 2015, p. 128). Following this definition, the main focus of conceptual articles is to develop theory by argumentatively elaborating conceptual frameworks, reviews, or integrative models to build the foundation of future empirical studies (Krafft, Goetz, Mantrala, Sotgiu, & Tillmanns, 2015). Scientific theory represents all systematically related assertions of concepts and their interrelationships that demonstrate the manifestation and the reason for phenomena to occur (Corely & Gioia, 2011). Theory purposefully increases the scientific understanding by applying a systematic structure that is capable of explaining and predicting phenomena (Hunt, 1983).

Projects that are arranged under the conceptual research dimension, therefore, contribute to build theory by synthesising, adapting and modelling existing phenomena or concepts, or transfer them to new fields of research.

Empirical research aims to support theory. Hence, theories and concepts are empirically tested to provide evidence of observed relationships (Krafft et al., 2015). Within the concept of empirical induction, scientific theories and general conclusions are extrapolated by induction from observations or empirical facts (Popper, 1989). Following the induction-deduction-scheme, the cognitive process of phenomena inductively rises to general laws and theories to nurture from these, and to descend again deductively to empirical observations (Popper, 1989). Consequently, systematically documented and edited data material serves as a foundation for analysing conceptual relationships and thus, theory development. Empirical research covers a wide variety of research methods, including all kinds of qualitative research, survey-based research, panel research, and (lab or field) experiments (Krafft et al., 2015).

Empirical projects use data and observations to contribute to the proof of concepts or hypothesised relationships. Data can, therefore, be both qualitative and quantitative, and researchers can draw on a broad spectrum of scientific methods that fit the needs of the chosen research design.

1.2.1.2RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

With regard to the research perspective, a distinction is made between actor-centric and systemic. The actor-centric dimension is derived from political sciences. Mayntz and Scharpf (1995) introduced the actor-centric institutionalism following the basic assumption that social phenomena are the result of interactions between intentionally behaving actors (Scharpf, 2006). The institutional framework structures actors’ behaviours in several ways (Baumgartner, 2010). It defines rules that actors expect themselves as well as others to follow. It also governs the use of resources, influence the action orientation, and shape aspects of the respective action situation (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995). Within the concept of actor-centric institutionalism, an actor refers to both, individuals and constellations of individuals, who can be regarded as uniformly acting actors. Although this concept is retrieved from political sciences, it features many theoretical overlaps with marketing and management literature. Accordingly, social interaction by actors and groups of actors, the behaviour-governing role of institutions as well as the actors’ ability to shape institutions are discussed through the lens of value co-creation (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Scott, 2013;

Vargo & Lusch, 2016).

Projects summarised under the actor-centric dimension consequently focus on social phenomena and behaviours of focal actors or groups of focal actors within a network that contributes to the co-creation of value.

The systemic dimension allows capturing the holistic and dynamic nature of value creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2016). Co-created value cannot be limited to individual actors, dyads or triads on the micro-level, engagement platforms on the meso-level or networks of interrelated engagement platforms on the macro-level. This is not to say that analyses covering either one of those levels are incorrect. Nevertheless, a systemic perspective would rather unite those different levels and consider their emergence as a continuum from actors’ dyads or triads, engagement platforms, and ultimately the whole service ecosystem (Meynhardt, Chandler,

& Strathoff, 2016). To consider a holistic picture of value co-creation, it is necessary to apply a systemic perspective on interactions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This interactive approach builds the social context for relationship marketing, which is based on relationships, networks, and interaction, whereby embedded in a wider management network (Gummesson, 2002). Hence, a systemic perspective reflects a process of zooming-out to be capable of

conceptualizing a broader picture with multi-actor settings on different levels, or rather networks of engagement platforms within ecosystems (Akaka & Vargo, 2015).

Consequently, projects of this thesis that are assigned to the systemic dimension consider a multi-level perspective. As such, they refer to a holistic view of systems where value is co-created beyond industry boundaries.

Besides the projects that are part of the research framework, this thesis consists of an introductory chapter one, opening remarks of chapter two that aim to briefly summarise the traditional logic in (service) management and sport management, and a concluding chapter six. To assure conformity, different layouts of submitted articles have been adjusted to the layout of this thesis.