Course: Epistemology and Management

Session #1 Reading #1:

Title: When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts on What Makes a Paper Interesting

Author: Barley (Stanford University)
Year: 2006
Type: Journal Article

Question #1: What makes a paper interesting?

The difference is what makes a paper interesting:

-The author suggests that a paper might seem interesting and unforgettable despite if you agree
with the authors’ ideas or not if it shows significant differences from other papers in terms
of:
1. Subject matter: The paper talks about topics that are quite different from what is
commonly accepted or popular.
2. Methods: the paper uses unique methods, unlike the common reliance on secondary
data, attitude surveys, and interviews of top managers.
1. Theory: The paper proposes new and different theories, models, and metaphors.

Session #1 Reading #2:

Title: From The Editors: For The Lack Of A Boilerplate: Tips On Writing Up (And Reviewing)
Qualitative Research
Authors: Pratt
Year: 2009
Type: Journal Article

Question #2: What is the difference between Qualitative and Quantitative Research?
- Qualitative research is ideal for addressing "how" questions and understanding the world from
the perspective of informants.
- Quantitative research is ideal for answering “how many” questions.

Question #3: What is a qualitative study?

- Qualitative research is used to examine and explain processes within social contexts.
- It offers various data collection methods, such as case studies (an in-depth investigation of a
single individual, group, event, or organization to explore complex issues in real-life contexts)
and ethnography (a qualitative research method where the researcher immerses in a group or
community to observe and understand their behaviors, cultures, and practices).

1
- Qualitative research can be either inductive (a bottom-up approach where patterns or theories
are developed based on observations or data), deductive (a top-down approach where a
hypothesis or theory is tested through data collection and analysis), or a rare combination of
both.

Question #4: Data Requirements in Qualitative Research:

-Boilerplate: Refers to standardized language or an accepted template for writing qualitative
research.
-Lack of agreed-upon significance level: Unlike quantitative research, qualitative findings do not
have a set "significance level."
-No magic number of interviews or observations: There isn't a specific number of interviews or
observations required for qualitative research.

Question #5: Challenges in qualitative research?

1. Lack of balance between theory and data:
1.1. Telling about data and not showing it:
Problem: too much telling and not enough showing (no clear chain of evidence)
Problem: lack of data in the body makes it less interesting
Problem: Separating the data from one’s argument
Solution: elaborate tables to organize data, and relate all your data to these tables
1.2. Showing too much data and not interpreting it:
Problem: limiting the analysis to simply what one found is not enough to publish.
Solution: articulation of significant theoretical contribution; how the classification
scheme leads to new theories or new theoretical insights.

2. Making qualitative research appear quantitative:

2.1. Using deductive “short hand”:
Problem: Qualitative research is often less accepted by non-qualitative reviewers,
who are more accustomed to quantitative methods. This creates a challenge for
researchers, leading them to use rhetorical tactics to present qualitative studies in a
way that seems more quantitative, potentially compromising the authenticity of the
research.
Solution: Use a structured format similar to quantitative articles (e.g., labeling
sections as (introduction, methods, findings, and conclusion), but only if it fits the
logic of the analysis.
2.2. Quantifying qualitative data:
Problem: Quantifying qualitative data in small-sample studies can lead to several
issues:
- It can be misleading.
- It risks misrepresenting the voices and experiences of participants ("violence to
experience").
Solution: researchers should avoid quantifying small-sample qualitative data and
instead focus on adequately representing the richness and depth of qualitative
insights.

2
 2.3. Inappropriately mixing inductive and deductive strategies:
Problem: some researchers inappropriately combine the inductive and deductive
elements within a qualitative study.
Solution: researchers should ensure that their sampling and coding techniques are
consistent with the chosen qualitative methodology (e.g., using theoretical sampling
for grounded theory).

Question #6: Finding Better Paths to Publish Qualitative Papers ?

1. Make sure your method section includes the basics:

a. Discuss why this research is needed:
- Why your methods are appropriate.
- Mention the gap and explain why it is important to fill the gap (Doing what others
have not done is not sufficient).

b. Are you building new theory or elaborating existing theory?

- Elaborating on existing theory: This approach is used when there is already a
theory in place, but there are gaps, oversights, or areas that need further
clarification or development. The goal is to fill in these gaps to improve the theory.
- Building new theory: This involves creating entirely new theoretical frameworks,
particularly when no existing theory adequately explains the phenomena being
studied.

c. Why did you choose this context and this unit of analysis?
- Researchers should discuss their sampling strategy (people, events, cases, etc.)
and explain why they were selected.
d. How did I get from my data to my findings?
- First-order codes: Begin by analyzing what informants say and explain which data
(e.g., interviews, observations) were used.
- Interview protocol: Include interview questions in an appendix for transparency.
- Second-order codes: Analyze data in relation to existing literature (e.g., axial
coding).
- Storytelling: Clearly explain how the data and findings fit together with a strong
chain of evidence.
- Coding validity: Use multiple coders when appropriate, but recognize that in-depth
ethnography may require solo coding due to contextual understanding.
- Researcher’s position: Clearly state your relationship with the participants and
how you were involved (e.g., participant observation).
-

2. Think about using organizing figures.

3. Think about telling a story:

3
 - Create a story to organize your findings and explain how themes fit together.

4. Consider “modeling” someone whose style you like who consistently publishes
qualitative work.
- Mimicking how other authors construct qualitative papers is helpful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Session #1 Reading #3:

Title: Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination

Author: Weick (The University of Michigan)
Year: 1989
Type: Journal Article

 Theorizing process model is organized around 3 components:

1. Problem-statement
2. Thought trials
3. Selection criteria

 Theory definition:
-Theory refers to an ordered set of statements or assertions about a general behavior or
structure, which are believed to apply across a wide range of specific instances.
-It is considered a dimension, meaning the more a generalization satisfies certain criteria of a
theory, the more it can be labeled as such.
-Essentially, theory explains patterns or relationships that are broadly applicable, rather than
focusing on specific, isolated cases.

 Validation definition:
-Verification and validation are terms often used to confirm that a hypothesis is supported.
-They both aim to show that the predicted relationship in the hypothesis actually exists.
-This confirmation is important to prove that the relationship isn’t just a result of random
chance.

 Quality of theory:
- A good theory is one that appears credible.
- It is considered of higher quality if it is interesting rather than obvious, irrelevant, or
absurd.
- A good theory should present obvious ideas in novel ways.
- It should create unexpected connections.
- The theory should have strong narrative reasoning and be aesthetically pleasing.
- It should align with presumed realities.
4
 - The quality of the theory improves when:
o Fuller problem statements are developed.
o Diverse thought experiments are created.
o Multiple selection criteria are applied consistently to these thought experiments.

 Problem Statement:
Weick emphasizes that theorizing begins with a problem statement, triggered by anomalies,
questions, or issues. The problem statement acts as a representation of reality, with richer and
more detailed representations increasing the chances of finding solutions.

 Thought trials:
Weick explains that theorizing involves trying out different ideas or “if-then” guesses to solve a
problem. Having a wide variety of ideas improves the chances of finding good solutions.
Making these ideas independent from each other allows for more creative possibilities. Clear
categories help organize these ideas and avoid overlap. Exploring ideas across different
perspectives or areas leads to bigger breakthroughs than sticking to one way of thinking.

 Selection of criteria:
Weick stresses the need for diverse yet consistent criteria when selecting ideas for theory
construction. Consistency ensures that weak ideas are eliminated, while inconsistency can lead
to retaining too many ideas, hindering progress. Biases and subtle shifts in criteria, often driven
by theorists’ desire to protect their ideas, can harm the process. Balancing creativity and
validation, as seen in examples from science and social sciences, is key to building strong
theories.

5
 Powerpoint #1 Material:

 Steps to write a paper:

1. Identification of an original area or interest, research field or subfield
2. Scanning the Literature review and identifying literature gaps
3. Identification of Problem statement
4. Research design
5. Empirical research Collect data  analyze empirical data  Interpretation of empirical
data (the empirical findings must be placed and evaluated within the context of the
theory).
6. Analysis and interpretation
7. Contribution to existing theories (contribution is not the empirical findings but the
importance of the empirical findings to the debate)

 The connection between empirical data and theory is both a: methodological issue and an
epistemological issue.

 What is the meaning of Epistemology?

- Epistemology is concerned with the process of knowledge, what knowledge is, how knowledge
is built or arrived at.
-The term “epistemology” comes from the Greek “episteme,” meaning “knowledge,” and
“logos,” meaning “science, of”.

 Why do I need Epistemology?

-To avoid errors when relating my empirical data to the contribution of existing theories.
-To clarify the link between concepts, observations, theory, and empirical facts.
-To understand the limitations of my research and contributions.

 Purpose of the research?

1. To test an existing theory (new data sets, new methodologies)
2. Elaborate an existing theory (identify gaps in existing literature and elaborate through
explanation)
3. Developing an entirely new theory from scratch (new ideas and theories)

 Epistemological paradigms:
-Positivism: Testing and expanding existing theories
-Realism: Combines both qualitative and quantitative research. Relate to social relevance.
-Constructivism: Is usually interested in how the world we live in is made rather than mapping
existing theories. Usually qualitative research.

 A research could follow:

6
1. Inductive approach: from practical to general. a bottom-up approach where patterns or
theories are developed based on observations or data.
Example: A sociologist observes that students who study in groups tend to score higher on
tests. From these observations, they propose a new theory that collaborative learning
enhances academic performance.
Key: Observation → Pattern → Tentative Hypothesis → Theory.
2. Deductive approach: subsuming the particular under the general. a top-down approach
where a hypothesis or theory is tested through data collection and analysis.
Example: A researcher starts with a general theory that exercise improves mental health.
They design a study to test whether people who exercise daily report lower anxiety levels,
expecting the results to confirm the theory.
Key: Theory → Hypothesis → Observation → Confirmation.
3. Abduction: Mixing both in rather irregular and improvised ways. Abduction is also often
called “Inference to the Best Explanation”.
Example: A doctor sees a patient with fatigue, fever, and rash. Based on these symptoms,
they hypothesize that the patient might have a rare viral infection, as it best explains the
observed symptoms, even though other possibilities exist.
Key: Observation → Best Possible Explanation.

Powerpoint #2 Material:

 Science: develops as conversation (most often indiect) rather than a monologue.

 Discovery: often calls for gambits of imagination.
 Explanation: is the primary goal of social science.
 3 things to consider an argument is an explanation:
1. Explanation as reality intervention: When it allows us to intervene in whatever we are
explaining.
2. Explanation as understanding: When we stop looking for explanations for the same thing.
3. Explanation as articulation of an argument: When we have a certain argument about it
(simple, exclusive…)

 Types of Explanation: (Explanatory Programs)

1. The Pragmatic View (The most familiar)
- An explanation is an account that allows us to intervene in reality.
- The pragmatic view of explanation suggests that an explanation is useful if it enables
intervention in a phenomenon.
- Ex: discovering germ-based disease
- An example is germ-based diseases: discovering the germ explains the disease because
it identifies a clear cause, allowing us to take action to stop it.
2. The Semantic View:
- Explanation is a move from one concept to another.

7
 - Transposing the thing we want to explain from a world that is less comprehensive to a
world that is better understood.
- Explanation is translating a phenomenon from one sphere of analysis to another until a
final realm is reached.
- Example: In consumer behavior research, the concept of “brand loyalty” might first be
described qualitatively through customer testimonials and behaviors. To make it more
comprehensible, researchers translate these observations into measurable metrics, such
as repeat purchase rates providing a clearer and more actionable framework for
analysis. Brand loyalty is moved from qualitative descriptions to a measurable, data-
driven analysis for better understanding.

3. The Syntactic view:

- We think an explanation is satisfactory simply because it is logically beautiful and
compelling.
- has a logical structure
- Aesthetically pleasing
- Example: In economics, the explanation of market equilibrium often relies on elegant
mathematical models, such as supply-demand curves. These models are logically
structured and aesthetically appealing, providing a sense of satisfaction through their
simplicity and symmetry.

 Types of Methods:
1. ethnography
2. historical narration
3. standard causal analysis (SCA)
4. small-n comparison
5. formalization
6. Pattern search

1. Ethnography

Ethnography is a qualitative research method focused on immersing the researcher within a

social setting to observe and interpret cultural practices, interactions, and the lived experiences
of individuals for a prolonged time.

This method often aligns with Interpretivism (context and meaning) and Narration, as it
emphasizes contextual understanding and the meanings that emerge through social
interaction. It limits its focus on individuals as community members. And it often promotes
situated knowledge debates. This method provides rich, context-dependent insights but faces
critiques related to its inability to generalize findings across different contexts.

Ethnography is a concrete version of the semantic explanatory program.

2. Historical Narration

8
Historical narration involves the analysis of historical records (like published and archived
material) to create stories that explain how particular social phenomena developed over time.
The art of historical discovery often lies in figuring out how previous conceptions of that
context were wrong.

This method is deeply connected with interpretivism and Narration, which Abbott presents as a
counterpoint to more abstract, causal explanations. Historical narration tends to emphasize the
importance of Contextualism and Culturalism, recognizing that events can only be understood
by considering their broader social and historical contexts. And it often promotes situated
knowledge debates.

Historical narration is a concrete version of the syntactic explanatory program.

Critics of historical narration argue that it often lacks the causal rigor found in more
quantitative approaches, but it remains a vital tool for understanding long-term social changes.

3. Standard Causal Analysis (SCA)

Standard Causal Analysis is a quantitative method focused on establishing cause-and-effect

relationships between variables. Defining a universe of cases involves categorizing variables
that can be unordered (e.g., gender, degree, occupation), ordered (e.g., Likert scales from 1 to
5), or continuous (e.g., income, wealth, age). This approach views the world as composed of
variables and requires constructing a logical scheme, such as an equation linking dependent
and independent variables.

However, this method faces validity challenges and, similar to ethnography and historical
analysis, structured case analysis (SCA) can be easily misapplied, leading to unreliable results.

Often associated with Positivism and Analysis debates, SCA employs techniques such as
regression analysis to uncover statistical patterns and correlations. It emphasizes individualism,
gives more priority to social structure than culture, and denies context. It leans toward choice
debates and is aligned with the universal knowledge debate.

SCA is an abstract version of the pragmatic explanatory program.

4. Small-N Comparison

Small-N comparison lies between ethnography and SCA, seeking to balance the in-depth
understanding of a few cases with the need for broader generalizations. This method is often
employed to compare a limited number of cases (the "N" refers to the number of cases
studied/interviews, observations) in order to generate insights that can inform broader social
theories. Small-N comparisons strive to avoid the extremes of generalizing too much from too
little data (a critique of ethnography) and losing the richness of specific cases (a critique of
SCA).

9
 Small-N comparison is a predominantly interpretive and narrative approach, ontologically
aligned with the perspectives of ethnography and narrative methods. It emphasizes a
constructionist view, focusing on understanding causality while respecting the particular
contexts and situated knowledge of the cases studied.

5. Formalization

Formalization refers to the use of mathematical models and abstract theories to explain social
phenomena. Rooted in Positivism and often aligned with Realism, formalization seeks to
provide clear, logical frameworks that can predict social outcomes.

Measurement is not important but analytic argumentation and modeling are the quintessence
of formalization. It emphasizes Universal knowledge and Leans towards individualism and
towards choice rather than constraint.

While formalization offers the potential for powerful explanatory models, it faces criticism for
being too removed from the complexities of social life and for downplaying the importance of
context and meaning.

Formalization is an abstract version of the syntactic explanation.

6.Pattern Search

pattern search refers to a research approach that focuses on identifying and analyzing
structures, trends, or relationships within data. This method emphasizes the discovery of
underlying patterns rather than establishing causal relationships or testing hypotheses.
Pattern search is often exploratory, aiming to uncover meaningful regularities that can provide
insights into the behavior or dynamics of social, organizational, or natural phenomena. It
frequently employs tools like clustering, categorization, and mapping to reveal these patterns
across cases or datasets.

Pattern matching is an abstract version of the semantic explanation.

 Interconnected Critiques
Abbott emphasizes that no single method is without its flaws, and each faces critiques from
different angles. Ethnography, for instance, is often criticized for its lack of generalizability,
while SCA is seen as too detached from the realities of social life. These methods are not
isolated but are part of a broader cycle of critique in social science, where one method's
weaknesses are addressed by another's strengths.

 Heuristic Takeaway: The notion of the heuristic advanced by Abbott is based on the
assumption that we can achieve, at least parly, cross-fertilization and combine methods or
elements from several methods in our methodology.

10
 Cross-fertilization: We can use each method to criticize but also learn from the other
methdological traditions.

Powerpoint #3 Material:

Methodology Centered Debates:

1. Positivism and Interpretivism

11
 Associated
Approach Definition Key Contrast
Research Type
-This approach emphasizes the
importance of measurement
and context-independence,
striving for causality and the
development of universal
knowledge. It prioritizes Relies on measurement and
Positivism accuracy, replicability, and Quantitative counting, emphasizing objectivity
validity as fundamental ideals and universal metrics.
and objectives in research.
-A view that social life can be
measured objectively with
independent, replicable, and
comparable results.
A view that social life cannot Focuses on interpretation and
be measured objectively, and context, emphasizing subjective
Interpretivism Qualitative
meaning is derived from meaning and the importance of
context and interaction. interaction.

2. Analysis and Narration:

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

The belief that telling a story is
Focuses on events and
sufficient to explain something, Narration explains by
Narration sequences, explaining
focusing on events and recounting what happened.
through storytelling.
sequences.
The belief that only abstract
Focuses on abstract Analysis explains through
analysis, often emphasizing
Analysis reasoning, emphasizing deeper, abstract causal
causality, can explain
causality. relationships.
something.

Social Ontology Debates:

3. Behaviorism and Culturalism

Approach Definition Focus Example

Behaviorism Focuses on social structure Emphasizes social Example: Demography (birth,
and behavior (routine pattern structure and behavior, death, marriage)

12
Approach Definition Focus Example
of behavior), rejecting concern
ignoring cultural meaning.
with culture and meaning.
-Argues that social life is
Focuses on meaning and
incomprehensible without
symbolic systems, like
investigating symbolic systems
culture, to understand
Culturalism like culture and meaning. Example: language and religion
social life, rather than
- Emphasizes that culture and
patterns of behavior and
meaning are essential to social
structure.
understanding.

4. Individualism and Emergentism

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

The belief that only
human individuals are Emphasizes social Focuses on
Asserts that all social behaviors
real entities in the social individual actions and self-
Individualism result from individual processes
world, and all social interests as the drivers of
and self-interests.
phenomena are the result social phenomena.
of individual actions.
The belief that social
Focuses on social structures
realities emerge from the Posits that social realities
and aggegate/collective
interactions between cannot be reduced to individual
Emergentism identities (organizatios,
individuals, creating actions alone, emphasizing
groups) that emerge through
phenomena irreducible to collective phenomena.
interactions.
individual actions.

5. Realism and Contructionism

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

Realism The belief that social reality Focuses on objective, Realism emphasizes stable, pre-
consists of well-defined stable social entities existing social structures and
people and groups that act like groups and entities.
based on stable, individuals.

13
Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast
identifiable structures.
The belief that social reality Focuses on dynamic,
People can differ rather
is constructed through fluid identities and
considerably in what they do
interaction, where roles formed through
Constructionism and believe depending on the
identities and roles are social interactions.
context of interaction
formed and negotiated in
(Family, community, ethnicity)
social contexts.

6. Contextualism and Noncontextualism

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

Action has no
The belief that social
meaning unless Contextualism argues that social
statements or actions have
we know the meaning of actions is dependent
Contextualism meaning only when
contextual on the specific context in which it
considered in their specific
details in which it occurs.
context.
appeared
- Most social phenomena
span
Views meaning as
different contexts
fixed and stable,
Noncontextualism -The belief that social Example: regularities
independent of any
statements or actions have
specific context.
the same meaning
regardless of context.

Problematic Debates:

7. Choice and Constraint

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

Choice Focuses on understanding Emphasizes individual Choice emphasizes individual
society by examining how decision-making and the agency and the role of

14
Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast
individuals make choices and
social consequences of
the consequences of those decision-making in social life.
choices made in groups.
choices in group contexts.
Focuses on understanding
Emphasizes the social Constraint emphasizes the
society by examining how social
forces and structures that influence of social structures
Constraint structures constrain and direct
limit individual freedom and forces that limit individual
individual behavior, limiting
and shape behavior. choices.
their choices.

8. Conflict and Consensus

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

Focuses on understanding
Emphasizes the hidden
society through the lens of Conflict views social life as
norms and rules that
Conflict conflict, examining the causes shaped by opposing forces and
generate or exacerbate
and structures that perpetuate struggles.
conflict.
social divisions.
Focuses on understanding Examines how norms,
Consensus views social life as
society by exploring how social rules, and institutions
Consensus shaped by divergent interest
norms, values, and institutions maintain social stability
and power.
maintain order and stability. and prevent disorder.

Knowledge-based debates:

9. Transcendent Knowledge and situated Knowledge

Approach Definition Focus Key Contrast

Emphasizes the hidden
The belief that universal,
Emphasizes the pursuit of Assumes that social
Transcendent objective knowledge is
objective, universal truths phenomena can be universally
Knowledge possible and applicable
that transcend specific understood and explained.
across all times and places.
contexts.
The belief that knowledge is
Emphasizes the importance
context-dependent and can Argues that only participants
Situated of understanding knowledge
only be understood within its have privileged access to the
Knowledge within the context of place,
specific social, cultural, and reality of their own context.
time, and social action.
temporal context.

15
Session #4: Reading #1:

Title: Platforms as service ecosystems: Lessons from social media

Authors: Cristina Alaimo, Jannis Kallinikos, Erika Valderrama
Year: 2020
Type: Journal Article

Paper Summary:

16
 Introduction:
The introduction traces the transformation of social media platforms from user-focused spaces
into complex, diversified business entities. Initially centered on user-generated content,
platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and TripAdvisor have evolved through expanding commercial
services, introducing offerings like payments, recruiting, and complete travel booking packages.
This diversification provides new revenue beyond advertising and incorporates broader
structural, technological, and economic influences.
TripAdvisor’s evolution exemplifies this shift through three stages: beginning as a search
engine, moving to a social media platform, and ultimately becoming an end-to-end service
ecosystem.

 Aim of the study:

Taking Tripadvisor as a longitudinal case study, this paper aims to investigate how different
forms of data—especially user-generated and business transaction data—drive this
transformation by fostering the data complementarities and service linkages that underpin
ecosystem development across various industries.
 Research Methods and Design:
Case Study was done with 2 stages:

Stage 1: Pilot Study:

 Conducted as an initial four-month field study, the pilot focused on observing 7 hotels, 5
restaurants, and 3 attractions working with TripAdvisor. (15 interviews)
 This stage provided insight into the complexity of TripAdvisor’s ecosystem, particularly
the data flows and revenue exchanges between TripAdvisor, Internet Booking Engines
(IBEs), Online Travel Agencies (OTAs), and hotel partners.
 The findings from this pilot helped emphasize the intricate, data-driven business
networks underpinning TripAdvisor’s operations.

Stage 2: Longitudinal Study:

 Following the pilot, the longitudinal study analyzed TripAdvisor’s historical evolution
from 2000 to 2017 using online archival records, mainly from TripAdvisor’s media
center, which provided press releases detailing key developments.
 The data included 2 secondary interviews with TripAdvisor’s CEO and public releases,
organized into categories (e.g., partnerships, acquisitions) to track platform
transformations.
 A co-term network analysis (bottom-up data process) was performed to visualize
recurring themes, yielding insights into TripAdvisor’s evolution through three stages:
search engine, social media platform, and end-to-end service ecosystem.

 Results:

 The pattern of TripAdvisor’s evolution:

17
Each stage saw the development of distinct services, data types, and partnerships that
supported TripAdvisor’s ongoing evolution and operations.

 Stage 1 (2000-2004): TripAdvisor functioned primarily as a search engine and travel

advertising platform, marked by growth in search and advertising services.
 Stage 2 (2004-2012): Transitioned towards a social media platform with Web 2.0 features
and inter-platform connectivity. In 2006, it fully embraced its role as a user-generated
content (UGC) platform.
 Stage 3 (2013-2017): Evolved into an end-to-end service ecosystem, adding booking and
integrated services across various travel-related entities, establishing TripAdvisor as a central
hub within a larger platform ecosystem.

1. Search Engine and Advertising:

2000-2004: TripAdvisor operated as Search Engine

 2000: TripAdvisor was established as a travel search engine, aiming to aggregate

fragmented travel information by indexing relevant travel websites and manually
classifying data.
 2001: The dynamic hotel index was introduced, offering a real-time ranking system for
hotels based on online content. This index was innovative for providing rankings based on
both quantity and quality of information available on the web.
 2002: TripAdvisor launched contextual link advertising, moving away from traditional
banner ads. This form of targeted advertising matched user search queries to related ads,
significantly improving click-through rates.
 2002: The Inventory Link service was developed, allowing TripAdvisor to automatically
index an advertiser’s products and link them directly to search results. This facilitated
streamlined lead generation for advertisers without requiring manual setup.

2. Social Media Platform and Inter-platform Connectivity:

2004-2012: TripAdvisor operated as Social Media Platform

 2004: TripAdvisor launched its Interactive Web Forums, enabling users to post questions
and responses, fostering interactive discussions. This year marked the start of TripAdvisor’s
transition into a social media platform by emphasizing user-generated content and social
features.
 2005: The Hotel Popularity Index was updated to include real reviews from TripAdvisor
users rather than general web data, solidifying the role of user-generated content in the
platform’s operations.

18
  2007: The Traveller Network feature was introduced, allowing users to connect with each
other and share travel experiences, which supported community building and data
collection on user interactions.
 2010: TripAdvisor launched Trip Friends in partnership with Facebook, enabling users to
get advice from Facebook friends who had visited the same destination. This integration
with Facebook helped expand TripAdvisor’s social graph.
 2012: Friend of a Friend feature was added, allowing users to connect indirectly through
friends’ networks, which further increased the size and scope of users’ social connections
on the platform.
 2014: The Just for You feature was introduced, personalizing hotel recommendations
based on user preferences and search history, enhancing the customization of user
experiences.

3. End-to-end Service Ecosystem:

2013-2017: TripAdvisor operated as Social Media Platform

 2013: TripAdvisor introduced Hotel Price Comparison, allowing users to view real-time pricing
and availability from multiple booking partners (like OTAs and IBEs) without leaving the
platform. This service enabled easy hotel comparisons and direct bookings, giving
accommodation owners broader access beyond major OTAs.
 2014: The Instant Booking feature launched for mobile, allowing users to complete hotel
bookings directly on TripAdvisor. Initially available for mobile in June 2014, it expanded to all
devices in the U.S. and the UK by September 2015 and globally in 2016. TheFork and Viator
acquisitions introduced restaurant and tour booking options, enhancing service coverage across
dining and attractions.
 2015: TripAdvisor collaborated with Uber to provide a Ride There with Uber feature, allowing
users to access Uber services directly from TripAdvisor’s interface for transportation to
restaurants, attractions, and hotels.

 Discussion:

 Transitions:

 Search Engine to Social Media Platform: TripAdvisor incorporated user-generated

content, shifting its role to a community-focused platform with increased user
engagement.

19
  Social Media Platform to End-to-End Service Ecosystem: TripAdvisor expanded to offer
real-time booking and transaction capabilities, transforming into a full-service travel
ecosystem.
 Data-Based Services: TripAdvisor developed complex services based on diverse data
sources, creating complementarities that strengthened ecosystem relationships and
supported integration across services.

 Conclusion:

 TripAdvisor’s Success and Ecosystem: The platform’s growth is tied to data generation
practices and data use that facilitate services requiring industry and organizational
boundary crossing.
 Data-Based Services: Defined as complex data assemblages moderating ecosystem
participant relationships, enabling data complementarities, and fostering ecosystem
formation.
 Ecosystem Theory Contribution: The study highlights the role of data complementarities
and technological conditions in ecosystem emergence, suggesting broader relevance
beyond TripAdvisor.
 Implications for Social Media Platforms: The findings may apply to other platforms (e.g.,
LinkedIn, Facebook, WeChat) as they evolve into cross-industry ecosystems.
 Future Research: Should explore how different data types and links support value-
reinforcing relations and the crossing of industry boundaries in social media.

 Summary:

Section Summary
Aim of the Study This paper aims to investigate how different types of data, especially user-generated and
transaction data, drive TripAdvisor's transformation by enabling data complementarities
and service linkages across industries.
Methodology - Pilot Conducted over 4 months, focusing on 7 hotels, 5 restaurants, and 3 attractions working
Study with TripAdvisor. It provided insights into TripAdvisor’s ecosystem, data flows, and
revenue exchanges with partners.
Methodology - Analyzed TripAdvisor's evolution from 2000 to 2017 using online archival records,
Longitudinal Case Study including press releases and CEO interviews. Data were organized to track platform
transformations across partnerships, acquisitions, and feature development.
Result - Stage 1 (Search 2000-2004: TripAdvisor functioned as a search engine and advertising platform, focusing
Engine & Advertising) on indexing travel information and providing advertising services.
Results - Stage 2 (Social 2004-2012: TripAdvisor transitioned into a social media platform with Web 2.0 features
Media Platform) and connectivity, fully embracing user-generated content by 2006.
Results - Stage 3 (End- 2013-2017: TripAdvisor evolved into an end-to-end service ecosystem, integrating
to-End Service booking services and partnerships across the travel industry.
Ecosystem)
Implications The findings may apply to other platforms (e.g., LinkedIn, Facebook, WeChat) as
they evolve into cross-industry ecosystems.

20
Relating to Class Material:

Section Options Selected Option Explanation

Intention of the  Test theory? Elaborate on The study relates to
study  Elaborate theory? existing theory literature on social
 Develop new theory? media, platforms and
ecosystems, but the
authors had identified a
critical gap that required
additional attention and
investigation.
Types of  Pragmatic? Semantic + The authors focused on
Explanation  Semantic? translating and linking
 Syntactic? Syntactic various types of data
and related services to
explain TripAdvisor’s
evolution.

The study structures the

platform’s evolution in
three distinct phases,
organizing these into a
narrative sequence.
Methodology  Ethnography? Historical Using historical records,
Approach  Historical Narration? Narration + the study presents a
 Standard Causal Analysis chronological case study
(SCA)? Pattern Search of TripAdvisor’s
 Small-N Comparison? evolution from 2000 to
 Formalization? 2017.

Used within a single-case

framework, it allowed to
identify significant
milestones and linkages
between data practices
and service offerings
Methodology-  Positivism? Interpretivism The study uses a case
centered  Interpretivism? study with qualitalive
Debates (Issues approach to understand
of Method TripAdvisor's evolution
Proper) within specific contexts
and subjective
interpretations.
Methodology-  Narration? Narration The study provides a

21
cenetred  Analysis? chronological account in
Debates (Issues a narrative flow of
of Method TripAdvisor’s evolution
Proper) —tracing its growth from
a search engine to a
social media platform,
and eventually, to a full-
service ecosystem.
Social Ontology  Behaviorism vs Culturalism? Behaviorism and The paper integrates
Debates Culturalism behaviorism by
examining users'
observable actions on
the platform, like posting
reviews, and culturalism
by analyzing how social
and technological
contexts shape these
behaviors within the
platform ecosystem.
 Realism vs Constructionism? Constructionism The paper shows that
platforms like
TripAdvisor are shaped
by constructed social
and business practices,
data use, and user-
generated content.
 Individualism vs Emergentism The paper looks at the
Emergentism? platform not just as a
sum of individual
actions, but as an
ecosystem where
relationships, data
flows, and interactions
create a larger structure
with emergent
properties.
 Contextualism vs Contextualism The paper considers how
Noncontextualism? technological and social
contexts influence the
development of social
media platforms.
Problematic  Choice and Constraint? Choice The study highlights the
Debates  Conflict and Consensus? various ways in which

22
 users actively
participate and shape
their experiences on
platforms like
TripAdvisor, making their
choice on whether to
post reviews, respond
to others, or navigate
content based on
personal interests.
Knowledge  Transcendent Knowledge and Transcendent The findings are
based debates Situated Knowledge? Knowledge universally applicable to
social media platforms
not just TripAdvisor.

Session #4: Reading #3:

Title: The partners of my partners: Shared collaborative experience and team performance in
surgical teams. Journal of Management.
Authors: Tonellato M., Iacopino V.,Mascia D., Lomi A. (2024)
Year: 2024

23
 Type: Journal Article

Summary:

 Introduction
The article investigates how Shared Collaborative Experience (SCE), derived from prior
partnerships among team members, influences team performance in temporary settings like
surgical teams. It conceptualizes SCE into two dimensions: SCE extent (number of shared prior
partners) and SCE diversity (variety of shared task experiences). The study hypothesizes that
SCE extent improves coordination and performance, while SCE diversity can hinder it by
creating representational gaps. It also examines the moderating role of task complexity.

 Theoretical Background
The study builds on prior research about temporary teams, emphasizing challenges like
maintaining coordination, shared cognition, and team learning. While team familiarity has been
studied extensively, the article focuses on leveraging shared experiences with external prior
partners, conceptualized as SCE. It highlights that SCE extent fosters teamwork by refining
implicit coordination and reflexivity, while SCE diversity complicates shared understanding due
to cognitive overload. The moderating effects of task complexity are also discussed, with
predictions that SCE’s impact will vary based on task demands.

 Hypotheses
1. Hypothesis 1 (H1): SCE extent is positively associated with team performance.
2. Hypothesis 2 (H2): SCE diversity is negatively associated with team performance.
3. Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Task complexity weakens the positive effect of SCE extent on team
performance.
4. Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Task complexity mitigates the negative effect of SCE diversity on
team performance.

 Research Design and Methods

The study examines 1343 robot-assisted surgeries performed by 114 surgeons in a European
hospital over four years. Data includes detailed surgery records, task complexity measures, and
collaboration histories. SCE extent and diversity are quantified using shared partnerships and
task experience diversity among team members. Performance is measured by surgery time,
with additional control variables like task complexity, team familiarity, and past performance of
surgeons.

 Results
Quantitative analysis supports H1 and H2, showing that higher SCE extent improves
performance through enhanced coordination and reflexivity, while higher SCE diversity hinders
performance due to representational gaps. Task complexity moderates these effects:
o For complex tasks, SCE extent’s positive impact weakens (H3a).
o For complex tasks, SCE diversity’s negative impact reduces (H3b).

24
 Discussion
The findings reveal that SCE extent benefits teamwork by fostering implicit coordination and
reflexivity, especially in less complex tasks. However, SCE diversity adds cognitive strain,
complicating shared understanding in simpler tasks but offering benefits in complex tasks
requiring diverse strategies. The results emphasize balancing familiarity and diversity to
optimize team effectiveness.

 Conclusion
The study advances team effectiveness literature by introducing SCE as a key concept for
temporary teams. It highlights how balancing shared experiences and diversity, while adapting
to task complexity, can enhance performance. The findings have implications for team design,
particularly in dynamic and temporary organizational contexts like healthcare.

Relating to Class Material:

Section Options Selected Explanation

Option
Intention of the  Test theory? Test theory - The study applies
study  Elaborate theory? established theoretical
 Develop new theory? +Elaborate in constructs, such as
theory teamwork and taskwork
components, shared
cognition, and team
familiarity, to test specific
hypotheses related to
Shared Collaborative
Experience (SCE) and team
performance.

It uses empirical data

(robot-assisted surgeries) to
validate or refute the
relationships between SCE
extent, SCE diversity, task
complexity, and team
performance.

- The study extends existing

theories by introducing SCE
as a nuanced concept that
combines prior partner

25
 exposure and team
familiarity.

It provides additional
insights into how task
complexity moderates the
effects of SCE dimensions
on performance, thus
refining and expanding the
understanding of these
constructs.
Types of  Pragmatic? Semantic + -The study moves from
Explanation  Semantic? theoretical concepts (team
 Syntactic? Pragmatic familiarity, prior partner
exposure, task complexity)
to operationalizing these in
a new context (Shared
Collaborative Experience -
SCE).

It focuses on how concepts

are connected and
translated into the real-
world phenomenon of team
performance in surgical
teams.

- The study is designed to

have practical implications,
particularly for team design
and performance
optimization in healthcare
settings.

It focuses on solving real-

world challenges (e.g., how
temporary teams can
improve performance) and
provides actionable insights
for team management in
dynamic environments.
Methodology  Ethnography? SCA The study employs a
Approach  Historical Narration? quantitative approach,

26
  Standard Causal Analysis using statistical models such
(SCA)? as regression analysis to
 Small-N Comparison? test hypotheses about the
 Formalization? causal relationships
between Shared
Collaborative Experience
(SCE) dimensions, task
complexity, and team
performance.

The methodology includes:

a.Analysis of a large dataset

(1343 robot-assisted
surgeries) over four years.

b.Measurement of team
performance (surgery time)
and operationalization of
variables like SCE extent,
SCE diversity, and task
complexity.

c.Hypothesis testing to
determine causal effects
and moderating influences.
Methodology-  Positivism? Positivism The study primarily adopts
centered  Interpretivism? a positivist approach,
Debates (Issues Minor focusing on objective
of Method interpretivism measurement, statistical
Proper) analysis, and identifying
causal relationships, as seen
in its use of quantitative
data and hypotheses testing
with a large sample size.
However, it incorporates
minor interpretivist
elements through
qualitative insights, such as
interviews and
observations, to provide
contextual understanding of
team dynamics and
interactions. This blend

27
 ensures both
generalizability and context
sensitivity.
Methodology-  Narration? Analysis The study is primarily
cenetred  Analysis? analysis, focusing on testing
Debates (Issues hypotheses and evaluating
of Method causal relationships using
Proper) quantitative methods like
regression analysis on data
from 1343 surgeries.
Social Ontology  Behaviorism vs Culturalism? Behaviorism The study aligns more with
Debates behaviorism because it
emphasizes observable
behavior (e.g., team
performance measured by
surgery time) and uses
quantifiable metrics like
Shared Collaborative
Experience (SCE) extent and
diversity to test causal
relationships.

It seeks generalizable
findings through statistical
analysis rather than
exploring cultural meanings
or the social context of
team interactions.
 Realism vs Constructionism? Realism it incorporates realist
elements by relying on
quantitative metrics (e.g.,
surgery time, SCE extent,
SCE diversity) to measure
and test causal
relationships, suggesting an
acknowledgment of an
objective basis for certain
phenomena.
 Individualism vs Emergentism The study aligns with
Emergentism? emergentism, emphasizing
that team performance
arises from the collective
interactions and shared
experiences within the

28
 team, with individualism
playing a minor role in
explaining outcomes.
 Contextualism vs Non The study aligns with non-
Noncontextualism? Contextualism contextualism, emphasizing
generalizable, context-
independent relationships
between variables like SCE,
task complexity, and
performance, aiming for
findings that can apply
across various
organizational settings.
Problematic  Choice and Constraint? Choice + The study aligns with the
Debates constraint Choice and Constraint
perspective, exploring how
team performance is
shaped by structural
constraints, such as Shared
Collaborative Experience
(SCE) and task complexity,
while also allowing for
individual agency in
leveraging these
experiences. It highlights
how team members
operate within the
constraints of prior
interactions and shared
knowledge, while their
ability to adapt and
coordinate reflects the role
of choice.
 Conflict and Consensus? Consensus The study aligns with the
Consensus perspective, as it
emphasizes the importance
of shared understanding,
coordination, and reflexivity
in improving team
performance. Concepts like
Shared Collaborative
Experience (SCE) focus on
fostering alignment and
common ground among

29
 team members through
prior collaborations,
highlighting how consensus
supports effective
teamwork.
Knowledge  Transcendent Knowledge and Transcendent The study aligns with
based debates Situated Knowledge? Knowledge Transcendent Knowledge,
focusing on deriving
generalizable principles and
causal relationships that
apply beyond the specific
context of surgical teams.

30