Understanding and studying value as a duality

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT Journal of Management History Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0096
Gregory Dole, Linda Duxbury
{"title":"Understanding and studying value as a duality","authors":"Gregory Dole, Linda Duxbury","doi":"10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>To cope successfully with the pressures imposed by a devastating pandemic and other challenges, companies and policymakers need to look at how they conceptualize, define, measure and operationalize “value”. This paper aims to support this conversation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This study presents a historical review of how the value construct has been conceptualized over time, demonstrating that its history is one of tension and debate with conceptualizations swinging between objective (i.e. the value of something exists independent of the observers) and subjective (i.e. the value of something depends on the personal response of the observer to what is being considered) views over time.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>This paper outlines the implications to researchers of value’s low construct clarity, offering suggestions designed to exploit rather than ignore the duality of the value construct. Instead of thinking of the value construct as being subjective or objective, this study recommends that scholars consider value’s objectivity and subjectivity as being interrelated and complementary. The paper recommends that researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in studying this construct.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>A major limitation of this paper is the word count limitation restricting the extent to which this paper could explore a more comprehensive list of the conceptualizations of value throughout history.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>This paper presents practitioners with a nuanced understanding of value that should assist those interested in examining the worth of investments with observable expenses but less quantifiable outputs.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The authors have not found a similar analysis of the various conceptualizations of value.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-09-2023-0096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To cope successfully with the pressures imposed by a devastating pandemic and other challenges, companies and policymakers need to look at how they conceptualize, define, measure and operationalize “value”. This paper aims to support this conversation.

Design/methodology/approach

This study presents a historical review of how the value construct has been conceptualized over time, demonstrating that its history is one of tension and debate with conceptualizations swinging between objective (i.e. the value of something exists independent of the observers) and subjective (i.e. the value of something depends on the personal response of the observer to what is being considered) views over time.

Findings

This paper outlines the implications to researchers of value’s low construct clarity, offering suggestions designed to exploit rather than ignore the duality of the value construct. Instead of thinking of the value construct as being subjective or objective, this study recommends that scholars consider value’s objectivity and subjectivity as being interrelated and complementary. The paper recommends that researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in studying this construct.

Research limitations/implications

A major limitation of this paper is the word count limitation restricting the extent to which this paper could explore a more comprehensive list of the conceptualizations of value throughout history.

Practical implications

This paper presents practitioners with a nuanced understanding of value that should assist those interested in examining the worth of investments with observable expenses but less quantifiable outputs.

Originality/value

The authors have not found a similar analysis of the various conceptualizations of value.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解和研究价值的二重性
目的为了成功应对毁灭性流行病和其他挑战所带来的压力,公司和政策制定者需要审视他们是如何对 "价值 "进行概念化、定义、衡量和操作的。本文旨在为这一对话提供支持。本研究对价值概念的历史进行了回顾,表明价值概念的历史充满了紧张和争论,其概念在客观(即某事物的价值独立于观察者而存在)和主观(即某事物的价值取决于观察者)之间摇摆不定。研究结果本文概述了价值建构清晰度低对研究人员的影响,并提出了一些建议,旨在利用而不是忽视价值建构的双重性。本研究建议学者们将价值的客观性和主观性视为相互关联、相辅相成的,而不是将价值建构视为主观或客观的。本文建议研究人员在研究这一概念时同时使用定量和定性方法。研究局限性/启示本文的主要局限性在于字数限制,这限制了本文探索历史上更全面的价值概念清单的程度。实用启示本文向从业人员展示了对价值的细致入微的理解,这应有助于那些有兴趣研究支出可观察但产出较难量化的投资的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Unveiling the intellectual nexus between Peirce’s synechism and Goldratt’s theory of constraints: insights for management and organization studies Back to roots! The singular introduction of statutory auditing in France, Germany and Great Britain (1844–1935) Rooting firm responsibility in social-ecological systems through ancient Nahua thought: rethinking the logic model in the global reporting initiative The troubled establishment of the Tourist Hotel Corporation of New Zealand Boundary spanning activities and resource orchestration as microfoundations of dynamic capability: a systematic literature review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1