In the course of our supervisory work over the years we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The first article provides an introduction to this series. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs. The third article focused on sampling, data collection and analysis. This fourth article addresses FAQs about trustworthiness and publishing. Quality criteria for all qualitative research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Reflexivity is an integral part of ensuring the transparency and quality of qualitative research. Writing a qualitative research article reflects the iterative nature of the qualitative research process: data analysis continues while writing. A qualitative research article is mostly narrative and tends to be longer than a quantitative paper, and sometimes requires a different structure. Editors essentially use the criteria: is it new, is it true, is it relevant? An effective cover letter enhances confidence in the newness, trueness and relevance, and explains why your study required a qualitative design. It provides information about the way you applied quality criteria or a checklist, and you can attach the checklist to the manuscript.
Stakeholders and in particular customers are an important source for business model innovation. Especially for sustainable business models, stakeholder integration may radically change the business logic and help to revise the business model. In this process cognition plays a central role, challenging basic assumptions and changing the dominant logic. In this paper we explore how interactions with the network contribute to making a cognitive shift in development of a sustainable business model. We build on three cases and closely look at the commercialisation stage in which a change of cognition and redesign of the business model take place. Our findings show that network interaction changes the dominant logic in business model innovation in two ways: by triggering a cognitive shift and by contributing to business model redesign. Our main contribution is the conceptualization of three interrelated shaping processes: market approach shaping, product/service offering shaping and credibility shaping. They provide a fine-grained perspective on value creation through collaborative networks and add to the business model literature by providing a framework to study the role of networks and cognition in business model innovation. For practitioners the shaping processes may support business model redesign and building relationships to advance commercialisation of sustainability-oriented innovations.
Business model innovations emerge over time and are influenced by managerial interaction with stakeholders. Especially with regard to business model innovation for sustainability, manager-stakeholder interaction can radically change a company’s business model and underlying logic. However, the majority of the literature shows how manager–stakeholder interaction may limit business model innovation when stakeholders reinforce existing managerial cognitions. In this chapter we study how stakeholders can also stimulate business model innovation by affecting managerial cognitive change. Through three case studies, we find that this can occur through three shaping processes: market approach shaping, product/service offering shaping, and credibility shaping. We also find that the impact of new or latent stakeholders is greater than that of existing stakeholders. We end the chapter by sketching a research agenda to further unravel the role of stakeholders affecting managerial cognition around business model innovation for sustainability.
The production, use, disposal and recovery of packaging not only generates massive volumes of waste, it also consumes raw materials, water and energy (Fitzpatrick et al. 2012). Simultaneously, consumers have shown an increasing interest in products incorporating sustainable and social attributes (Kletzan et al., 2006). As a result, environmentally friendly packaging, also called ecofriendly or sustainable packaging, has become mainstream. In this context, packaging is more than just ensuring the product's protection and easing transportation, it is also a communicative tool (Palmer, 2000) and it becomes associated with multiple drivers of the purchasing process. Consequently, companies face pressure to innovate responding to consumer demands, and focusing on sustainable solutions that reduce harmful materials and favour green alternatives for both, the product and the packaging. Although the above has triggered research on consumer choice for sustainable products and alternatives on sustainable packaging, the relation between sustainable packaging and consumer behaviour remains underexplored. This research unpacks this relationship, i.e., empirically verifies which dimensions (recyclability, biodegradability, reusability) of sustainable packaging are perceived and valued by consumers. Put differently, this research investigates consumer behaviour towards the functions of sustainable packaging in terms of product protection, convenience, reliability of information and promotion, and scrutinises the perceived credibility of the associated ethical responsibility claims. It aims to identify those packaging materials and/or sustainability characteristics perceived as more sustainable by consumers as well as the factors influencing actual consumer choice towards sustainable packaged products. We aim to gain more insights in the perceptual frame that different types of consumers apply when exposed to sustainable packaging. To this end, we will make use of revealed preference methods to measure consumer valuations of sustainable packaged products. This game-theoretic approach should provide a more complete depiction of consumers' perceptions and preferences.
Being objective as a journalist indicates a distance to your sources and maintaining the role of a neutral bystander. This principle echoes in journalism education; generally speaking, to call something objective is a compliment and to say something is subjective is a warning. This journalistic role perception faces criticism since the late twentieth century. There’s extensive scholarly research looking to bridge the gap between objectivism and subjectivism, but journalistic education still widely prioritizes a binary perception of these principles, putting a strong emphasis on objective reporting. This PD aims to integrate artistic practices into journalism education that advocate a more balanced approach of the assumed objective-subjective dichotomy. One such approach is live journalism, where the artistic method extends to productional outcome, usually in the form of a journalistic narrative brought before a live audience. Research shows that, whereas visitors still think such productions should be fact-based, the fact that journalists had (made) a personal connection to their subject was seen as essential to the credibility of their work. This presupposes that journalism in this context is not merely a profession, but rather a person carrying out a profession. This PD intends to not only accept a certain subjectivity, but to explore its potential in journalism education. It plays with the concept not as being or becoming personally opinionated as a journalist, but as subjecting the self as a reporter. Research shows that for journalists, such an active connection to a target audience and an attitude to want to hear more than an answer to a question leads to a more representative understanding of the position and predicaments of a social group. In this light, the objective and subjective do not present themselves as a T-junction where the journalist chooses either one or the other; they appear in mutuality.
