Very insightful Prof. Sandberg...thank you for your immense contributions and for enriching organizational science by infusing philosophy...brings depth and enlivens the field...

Thank you for the excellent video. If I am studying 4 cases and will search for similarities between them - should I use Gioia or thematic analysis ? Do I have to code 1st and 2nd orders case per case or all together ? And should I analyse them case per case then regroup similarities in the discussion or differently ? thank you

Many thanks to the channel new scholars; you have shaped my Phd journey. Looking to participate i a love session if you still host them.

They way Prof Jay, made the intro for shared leadership on the stop was amazing. 1:03:49

Very much liked the quote in the 16th minute: "Theory has a different purpose, from representation to more *intervening* in the world, a technique for *coping* with a complex, uncertain world."

Thank you so much!

Brilliant and to the point

Such an amazing practical webinar. Thank you!

Hi! Thanks fir the useful video. How can we perform a sensitivity analysis in an integrative review since meta-analytic methods are not applied? If the purpose of the integrative review is to propose a theoretical framework, how can someone validate the proposes model with a case study?

Great!

It is unfortunate that you have decided to borrow the term ‘cooperative economy’ and use it as a cover under which to assemble and present your ideas. With this you bring unnecessary confusion, instead of suggesting a novel designator for the exchange system that you propose. You seem to disregard (hope not in denial) that cooperative economy has been a subject of attention for decades. There exists cooperative scholarship and substantial effort has been put into studying cooperative forms of organising and cooperative organisations and enterprise.

AI is developed by humans. The former can never be smarter than the latter. If AI is smarter, for what purpose? Or for whose purpose?

If there is no need to produce knowledge just for the sake of producing knowledge when it does not have any impact, is there a need to protect a profession just for the sake of protecting it when the profession does not have any impact?

Really insightful discussion. Thanks for organising and sharing

Extremely helpful session. Thank you for sharing!

Hi Professor, Thank you for the enlightening session. I am intrigued by how you juxtaposed design science with theoretical science in your 2009 paper to bridge practical and theoretical knowledge. This approach resonated with me and was reflected in my initial research papers as well. Could you recommend any readings on transforming 'practical relevance' into 'practical utility,' as mentioned in your summary? Additionally, I would like to share a reflection on writing 'managerial implications' as an early-career researcher. It appears that many practitioners seldom read academic papers, likely due to the vast number of journals available. When they do engage, they tend to seek direct answers in specific sections rather than cramming through 20-30 pages of a paper. This reality ironically makes the managerial implications section “relevant”. And while some might view this reflects researchers' arrogance, I believe such a view is quite harsh, particularly for early researchers. Writing this section not only targets practitioners but also challenges researchers to bridge the gap with their audience effectively. Thank you, Prof, once again for the series of theory contributions.

Wow , what an important subject , and to only have 15 likes or no comments yet , to me is astonishing, as I feel it should be an essential knowledge taught to all people

Thanks a lot for the great content. Please talk about introduction section and how do you recommend motivating and problematizing study.

As part of a PhD class, I was tasked to do an article review. I attempted to use Toulmin's model to that paper and deconstructed the main claim along with its warrants, backings and empirical observation. I was able to point out certain backings and warrants which were not considered in the paper but were in the literature giving a different perspective to the empirical observation. It made the article review manageable and engaging at the same time. Thank you Professor Ketokivi!

In dissertations, students usually declare the -ologies and -isms in the methodology section. Examiners may even expect to see this. I agree with your point five but how do I overcome this in my dissertation?

Thank you!

Thanks from everyone who will watch and learn from this seminar. This is a real contribution.

Listening to this session turned me away from the thought of completely avoiding biases because it itself is a bias in terms of black-and-white thinking. If I try to trace back (to the way of seeing), it will lead to nowhere rather than how I see the world (i.e., my ontology), which ‘no one sitting around the table cares”. Thus, it is how I perceive the limitations in my claims (the qualifiers) and make my reasoning and argumentation process transparent to our audience that matters more. Thank you, Prof. :)

Thanks.

Thanks Mikko for uploading the video which is very useful for junior researcher

Thanks for putting this session online.

Thank you for your comments! I think the notion of bias deserves a closer look. The Toulmin model and the examples I talked about in Session 3 (economic inequality and the Schwinn antitrust case) can be used to illustrate how some biases are simply unavoidable (prescription: make these biases explicit) but others are avoidable (prescription: try to mitigate these biases). I have posted a follow-up reflection on this.

Thanks for sharing. Not able to join the live session because of my classes.

Again, this is a great and extensive seminar. I believe incorporating ' reasoning' and 'argumentation' into our practice will help us avoid biases, as stated in summary number 5. Thank you so much, Prof. Ketokivi! :)

Such an underrated channel! Must watch for anyone interested in research.

"Food for thoughts", indeed. Before viewing this session, I did confound the ways of reasoning and the ways of doing research (research design). It made me contemplate what we claim deductive or inductive research design and the 'extreme state' of generalising and contextualising. Is that extreme generalisation actually a high level of contextualisation in one way or another? Now I can find the answer thanks to your transparent explanation. :) Thank you Prof. Ketokivi, and I really look forward to your subsequent sessions.

Oops... theoretical-model abduction appears twice on the slide at 5:06. Of course, whether there are 35 or 36 variants of abduction hardly changes the point I am trying to make. And in fact, this list is probably far from complete. If you come across more variants of abductive reasoning, go ahead and add them in the comment section, and let us crowd-source a more complete list.

Let me make a clarification on the claim I present at 4:42. Instead of "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not ways of doing research," a better formulation would have been, "deduction, induction, and abduction are forms of reasoning, not research designs." Saying "I do deductive research" is misleading, because what we casually call "deductive research" incorporates inductive and abductive reasoning as well. The same observation applies to "inductive research" and "abductive research."

Thanks for sharing. I was not able to join for this session. I had a class.

you may have wanted to talk about something else, but I think it is very helpful to deny the audience's evaluation of the importance of truth 🙂

Thank you so much for the series - looking forward to the new sessions and perhaps join in on one of them if time permits. Based in Asia so it's a little late for me :)

The follow-up reflection of Session 1 (and the concept of truth in particular) is now available both at the New Scholars channel and my personal webpage for this seminar (it looks like comments with URLs in them are deleted, so I cannot post the link in this comment).

Thank you Professor. I really enjoy your videos and watched them multiple times. I am in awe of how you use your words diligently. Thank you for making it available on KZbin. I really liked the Sutton and Staw (1995) article on "What theory is not" and Weicks (1995) on "What theory is not, theorizing is". However, your having a conversation on a table analogy makes so much sense and simplifies the concept. I would be grateful if you can teach the art of theorizing in social science. Thank you Professor once again.

Much appreciate New Scholars for your recording and editing. It's simply brilliant of your work. And thank you, Prof. Ketokivi, for the very captivating session. Look forward to upcoming sessions. :)

Love it. Thanks. I think many researchers will sign up.

As I went through this again, I realized that misspoke referring to Charmaz's coding as descriptive- it should be focused. In adddition, CARMA is the Consortium (not Center) for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis.

Thank you for the introduction, and for the next live session dates. Are you able to please supply a reference for Barney?

How can we join the seminar online? Any links?

The live sessions are as follows: April 19 @16:00 CET (Central European Time) April 26 @16:00 CET May 03 @16:00 CET May 10 @16:00 CET May 17 @16:00 CET

Hi , this sounds really useful but when are the live sessions etc

Excellent as always!

Fantastic

Loved this! Thank you Joep! So helpful.

Audio volume is terrible but the content of the video is very good

Amazing, thank you very much for the webinar!