Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Design and Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Business Model Innovation as a Dynamic Capability

Part of the book series: Contributions to Management Science ((MANAGEMENT SC.))

Abstract

According to Bryman and Bell (2007), the continuum of ontological positions ranges from objectivism on one end to constructionism on the other, while epistemological positions can range from positivism to interpretivism, whereas Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) distinguish between realist, internal realist, relativist and nominalist ontologies and positivist and social constructionist epistemologies. If the term “constructionism” is used to denote an epistemology opposite of positivism, it expresses both the relation to the social world and the knowledge of this world (Bryman and Bell 2007).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx

  2. 2.

    http://www.evernote.com

References

  • Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks, D., Fenrnandez, W., Levina, N., & Nasirin, S. (2013). Grounded theory method in information systems research: Its nature, diversity and opportunities. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis [Online]. Sage. Amazon Kindle eBook. Accessed January 2013, from Amazon.de

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2012). Management research [Online]. Sage. Amazon Kindle eBook. Accessed October 2013, from Amazon.de

  • Egan, T. M. (2002). Grounded theory research and theory building. Advanced in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, S., & Waters, J. (2013). Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaboration behaviors. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 95–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 9–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Girod-Séville, M., & Perret, V. (2001). Espistemological foundations. In R.-A. Thiéart (Ed.), Doing management research: A comprehensive guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs. forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, C. (2009). Grounded theory perspectives in organizational research. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Petraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations [Online]. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Amazon Kindle eBook. Accessed January 2011, from Amazon.com

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., & Truax, J. (1994). A process study of new technology adoption in smaller manufacturing firms. Journal of Management Studies, 31(5), 619–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matavire, R., & Brown, I. (2011). Profiling grounded theory approaches in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(1), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, D. (2000). Building grounded theories of management action. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1992) The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special Issue: Fundamental Themes in Strategy Process Research), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royer, I., & Zarlowski, P. (2007). Research design. In R.-A. Thietart (Ed.), Doing management research: a comprehensive guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C. (2003). The role of micro-strategies in the engineering of firm evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanley, M., & Peteraf, M. (2006). The centrality of process. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(1/2), 4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2009). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20, 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5, 4th ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alliance Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK

    Marc Sniukas

Authors
  1. Marc Sniukas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sniukas, M. (2020). Research Design and Methodology. In: Business Model Innovation as a Dynamic Capability. Contributions to Management Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50100-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation