Strategic Management and Marketing
Theory in the Creative Industries
Created @July 30, 2023 9:05 PM
Semester SEM 1
Date @October 30, 2023
Lecture Contact Dr Laura Dupin, Dr. Monika Kackovic, Prof. Mr. Dr. Nachoem M.Wijnberg
Table of contents
Week 1: Introduction
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization
Kennedy (2008), Getting counted: markets, media, and reality
Baum & Shipilov (2006), Ecological approaches to organsiations
Kuijken, Gemser & Wijnberg (2016), Effective product service systems: a value-based framework
Week 2: Organisation or Network
Simon (1991), Organisations and markets
Kogut (2000), The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure
Uzzi & Spiro (2005), Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem
Ebbers & Wijnberg (2009). Latent Organizations in the Film Industry
Week 3: Competition or Market
Jia, Lewis, & Negro (2022), Collaborations and Innovation in Partitioned Industries: An Analysis of US Feature
Film Coproductions.
Hitters & Kamp (2010), Tune in, fade out: Music companies and the classification of domestic music products in
the Netherlands
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 1
, Mol, Wijnberg & Carroll (2005), Value Chain Envy: Explaining New Entry and Vertical Integration in Popular
Music
Rindova, Becerra & Contrado (2004), Enacting competitive wars: Actions, Language Games, and Market
Consequences
Week 4: Strategy or Identity
Ghoshal, Sumantra & Moran (1996), Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory
Phelan & Lewin (2000), Arriving at a Strategic Theory of the Firm
Kanter (2002), Strategy as Improvisational Theatre
Seong & Godart (2018), Influencing the influencers: diversification, semantic strategies, and creativity
evaluations
Glynn & Abzug (2002), Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names
Week 5: Innovation or Industry life cycle
Suarez, Grodal, and Gotsopoulos (2015), Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window
of opportunity for firm entry
Fayard, Stigliani & Bechky (2017), How nascent occupations construct a mandate: the case of service designers
Reid & De Brentani (2004), The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovation:
A Theoretical Model
Wijnberg (2004), Innovation and Organisation: Value and Competition in Selection Systems
Week 6: Resource or Capability
Miller & Shamsie (1996), A Resource-Based View of the Firm in two Environments: The Hollywood Film
Studios from 1936 to 1965
Shamsie, Martin & Miller (2009), In with the old, in with the new: Capabilities, strategies,and performance
among the Hollywood studios
Arend, Bromiley (2009), Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: sparechange, everyone?
Mol & Wijnberg (2011), From Resources to Value and Back: Competition Between and Within Organizations
Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen (2010), Reconsidering the reputation—performance relationship: A resource-based
view
Week 1: Introduction
Literature
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization
Kennedy (2008), Getting counted: markets, media, and reality
Baum & Shipilov (2006), Ecological approaches to organsiations
Kuijken, Gemser & Wijnberg (2016), Effective product service systems: a value-based framework
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and
Organization
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 2
, This article discusses construct clarity, what makes a good theory and provides a guideline of 4 criteria:
1. A definition of the construct, indicating the essential characteristics and properties
2. A scope definition in terms of time, space (micro/macro viewpoint) and value ( construct is understood by
organisations, individuals and society as a whole)
3. Semantic (language) relationship that entails the meaning of the definition and the coherence of reasoning
4. Coherence
→ Criteria for construct clarity is necessary for understanding and testing theory
Theory
Constructs are
conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be directly observed but rather abstract statements of
categories of observations
robust categories that distill phenomena into sharp distinctions that are comprehensible to a community
of researchers
at the core (building blocks) for developing a theory
Construct clarity comprises of 4 basic elements:
1. Definitions
a. the skilful use of language to accurately abstract empirical phenomena into robust conceptual
generalisations using terms the reader can understand
b. A good definition should:
i. effectively capture the essential properties and characteristics of concepts under consideration
ii. Avoid circularity, tautology or redundancy
iii. Be parsimonious: only the essentials
iv. Use names used in common speech and try to strip it from the extraneous meaning that has become
attached to it by frequent use
v. Offer contextually specific and clear description of the term (not too broad or narrow)
vi. Have illustrative examples
2. Scope conditions
a. Few constructs in organisation theory have universal applicability, organisational constructs are highly
sensitive to and contingent on contextual conditions
b. Be careful in borrowing definitions from other disciplines as it assumes universality
c. Science is about producing theories that are hard to falsify and assuming universality means ignoring
the unique features of a definition that contribute to its scope definition
d. Specifying boundary conditions are important, 3 types:
i. Time: constructs are subject to constraints of time as changes may affect the expression of any
construct
ii. Space: level of analysis dependence (micro, macro economics)
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 3
, iii. Values: scope conditions of a theoretical construct that arise as a result of the assumptions or world
view of the researcher
3. Semantic relationships
a. Constructs exist only in referential relationship, either explicit or implicit, with other constructs and
with the phenomena they are designed to represent.
b. They are the outcome of a semantic network of conceptual connections to other prior constructs.
c. To demonstrate construct clarity is to draw out these relationships in a fashion that the reader can
understand.
d. Describing the historical relationships between the proposed new construct and the prior historical
constructs on which it was built is a critical component of the literature review
4. Coherence
a. The definition, scope and relationship should all make sense, it must all cohere in a logically consistent
manner
b. The umbrella construct must retain an overall coherence or consistency that is more than the sum of its
foundational parts → internal coherence of the umbrella construct: a “latent model” and the summated
elements as an “aggregate model”
c. Coherence is a somewhat intuitive assessment of whether the various attributes of a phenomenon are
adequately contained within a construct, usually done through coherent
explanation
Why do we need construct clarity?
1. Facilitates communication between scholars: providing a common language, avoids the proliferation of
different terms and labels for similar phenomena leading to confusion
a. Clear constructs should also extend the scope of knowledge beyond the academic community to include
practitioners
b. An effective construct navigates a narrow path between definitional accuracy and communicable
generality.
2. Enhances researcher’s ability to empirically explore phenomena: helping them to test the theory and
identify anomalies or phenomena that defy categories and force researcher to re-evaluate their theories.
3. Allow greater creativity and innovation in research: allowing manager to redefine problems in ways that
are more amenable to resolution, stimulating insights into additional possible relationships, related
constructs and often related theories.
Variations of construct clarity
Different field scholars might hold different views as to what might constitute a good definition.
Umbrella advocates → researchers who argue that constructs should be viewed as large buckets or broad
concepts loosely defined because this better captures the inherent complexity and messiness of the empirical
world we study.
Validity police → argue that constructs should be small buckets narrowly defined in order to bring more
scientific rigour and validity to the study of organisations.
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 4
Theory in the Creative Industries
Created @July 30, 2023 9:05 PM
Semester SEM 1
Date @October 30, 2023
Lecture Contact Dr Laura Dupin, Dr. Monika Kackovic, Prof. Mr. Dr. Nachoem M.Wijnberg
Table of contents
Week 1: Introduction
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization
Kennedy (2008), Getting counted: markets, media, and reality
Baum & Shipilov (2006), Ecological approaches to organsiations
Kuijken, Gemser & Wijnberg (2016), Effective product service systems: a value-based framework
Week 2: Organisation or Network
Simon (1991), Organisations and markets
Kogut (2000), The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure
Uzzi & Spiro (2005), Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem
Ebbers & Wijnberg (2009). Latent Organizations in the Film Industry
Week 3: Competition or Market
Jia, Lewis, & Negro (2022), Collaborations and Innovation in Partitioned Industries: An Analysis of US Feature
Film Coproductions.
Hitters & Kamp (2010), Tune in, fade out: Music companies and the classification of domestic music products in
the Netherlands
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 1
, Mol, Wijnberg & Carroll (2005), Value Chain Envy: Explaining New Entry and Vertical Integration in Popular
Music
Rindova, Becerra & Contrado (2004), Enacting competitive wars: Actions, Language Games, and Market
Consequences
Week 4: Strategy or Identity
Ghoshal, Sumantra & Moran (1996), Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory
Phelan & Lewin (2000), Arriving at a Strategic Theory of the Firm
Kanter (2002), Strategy as Improvisational Theatre
Seong & Godart (2018), Influencing the influencers: diversification, semantic strategies, and creativity
evaluations
Glynn & Abzug (2002), Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names
Week 5: Innovation or Industry life cycle
Suarez, Grodal, and Gotsopoulos (2015), Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window
of opportunity for firm entry
Fayard, Stigliani & Bechky (2017), How nascent occupations construct a mandate: the case of service designers
Reid & De Brentani (2004), The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovation:
A Theoretical Model
Wijnberg (2004), Innovation and Organisation: Value and Competition in Selection Systems
Week 6: Resource or Capability
Miller & Shamsie (1996), A Resource-Based View of the Firm in two Environments: The Hollywood Film
Studios from 1936 to 1965
Shamsie, Martin & Miller (2009), In with the old, in with the new: Capabilities, strategies,and performance
among the Hollywood studios
Arend, Bromiley (2009), Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: sparechange, everyone?
Mol & Wijnberg (2011), From Resources to Value and Back: Competition Between and Within Organizations
Boyd, Bergh, & Ketchen (2010), Reconsidering the reputation—performance relationship: A resource-based
view
Week 1: Introduction
Literature
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization
Kennedy (2008), Getting counted: markets, media, and reality
Baum & Shipilov (2006), Ecological approaches to organsiations
Kuijken, Gemser & Wijnberg (2016), Effective product service systems: a value-based framework
Suddaby (2010), Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and
Organization
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 2
, This article discusses construct clarity, what makes a good theory and provides a guideline of 4 criteria:
1. A definition of the construct, indicating the essential characteristics and properties
2. A scope definition in terms of time, space (micro/macro viewpoint) and value ( construct is understood by
organisations, individuals and society as a whole)
3. Semantic (language) relationship that entails the meaning of the definition and the coherence of reasoning
4. Coherence
→ Criteria for construct clarity is necessary for understanding and testing theory
Theory
Constructs are
conceptual abstractions of phenomena that cannot be directly observed but rather abstract statements of
categories of observations
robust categories that distill phenomena into sharp distinctions that are comprehensible to a community
of researchers
at the core (building blocks) for developing a theory
Construct clarity comprises of 4 basic elements:
1. Definitions
a. the skilful use of language to accurately abstract empirical phenomena into robust conceptual
generalisations using terms the reader can understand
b. A good definition should:
i. effectively capture the essential properties and characteristics of concepts under consideration
ii. Avoid circularity, tautology or redundancy
iii. Be parsimonious: only the essentials
iv. Use names used in common speech and try to strip it from the extraneous meaning that has become
attached to it by frequent use
v. Offer contextually specific and clear description of the term (not too broad or narrow)
vi. Have illustrative examples
2. Scope conditions
a. Few constructs in organisation theory have universal applicability, organisational constructs are highly
sensitive to and contingent on contextual conditions
b. Be careful in borrowing definitions from other disciplines as it assumes universality
c. Science is about producing theories that are hard to falsify and assuming universality means ignoring
the unique features of a definition that contribute to its scope definition
d. Specifying boundary conditions are important, 3 types:
i. Time: constructs are subject to constraints of time as changes may affect the expression of any
construct
ii. Space: level of analysis dependence (micro, macro economics)
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 3
, iii. Values: scope conditions of a theoretical construct that arise as a result of the assumptions or world
view of the researcher
3. Semantic relationships
a. Constructs exist only in referential relationship, either explicit or implicit, with other constructs and
with the phenomena they are designed to represent.
b. They are the outcome of a semantic network of conceptual connections to other prior constructs.
c. To demonstrate construct clarity is to draw out these relationships in a fashion that the reader can
understand.
d. Describing the historical relationships between the proposed new construct and the prior historical
constructs on which it was built is a critical component of the literature review
4. Coherence
a. The definition, scope and relationship should all make sense, it must all cohere in a logically consistent
manner
b. The umbrella construct must retain an overall coherence or consistency that is more than the sum of its
foundational parts → internal coherence of the umbrella construct: a “latent model” and the summated
elements as an “aggregate model”
c. Coherence is a somewhat intuitive assessment of whether the various attributes of a phenomenon are
adequately contained within a construct, usually done through coherent
explanation
Why do we need construct clarity?
1. Facilitates communication between scholars: providing a common language, avoids the proliferation of
different terms and labels for similar phenomena leading to confusion
a. Clear constructs should also extend the scope of knowledge beyond the academic community to include
practitioners
b. An effective construct navigates a narrow path between definitional accuracy and communicable
generality.
2. Enhances researcher’s ability to empirically explore phenomena: helping them to test the theory and
identify anomalies or phenomena that defy categories and force researcher to re-evaluate their theories.
3. Allow greater creativity and innovation in research: allowing manager to redefine problems in ways that
are more amenable to resolution, stimulating insights into additional possible relationships, related
constructs and often related theories.
Variations of construct clarity
Different field scholars might hold different views as to what might constitute a good definition.
Umbrella advocates → researchers who argue that constructs should be viewed as large buckets or broad
concepts loosely defined because this better captures the inherent complexity and messiness of the empirical
world we study.
Validity police → argue that constructs should be small buckets narrowly defined in order to bring more
scientific rigour and validity to the study of organisations.
Strategic Management and Marketing Theory in the Creative Industries 4
