Understanding strategic decision-making through a multi-paradigm perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the efficacy of using a multi-paradigm perspective to examine the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and strategic decision-making processes in the context of charitable foundations. Design/methodology/approach This paper integrates and synthesizes the micro-social processes of “assessable transcendence” (Anagnostopoulos et al. , 2014) with Whittington’s (2001) perspectives on strategy. “Assessable transcendence” was achieved from the constant comparison of categories developed through an early iterative process in which data collection and analysis occurred during the same period. In all, 32 interviews were conducted among a sample of key managers in the charitable foundations for the first two divisions of English football. Findings The present study illustrates empirically that strategic decision making in charitable foundations does not “seat” neatly in any one of Whittington’s perspectives. On the contrary, this study indicates a great deal of overlap within these perspectives, and suggests that conflicting paradigms should be celebrated rather than viewed as signs of theoretical immaturity. Multi-paradigm approaches can potentially reveal insights into the “mechanics” of managerial decision making that are not easily discernible from a mono-paradigmatic perspective. Originality/value This is the first empirical work that examines CSR in relation to strategy within the context of the English football clubs’ charitable foundations, and does so by employing a multi-paradigm perspective on strategy formulation and implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".