An ACM response: the scope and directions of Computer Science

Sımons, Barbara; Frailey, Dennis J.; Turner, A. Joe; Zweben, Stuart H.; Denning, Peter J.

doi:10.1145/125223.125276

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on grand challenges in management has been slow to accumulate, although there is the potential for theory development and the production of practical knowledge on this subject (Seelos et al, 2023). In other disciplines and cross‐disciplinary fields, including medical informatics (Haux, 1997), chemistry (Lippard, 2000), computer science (Simons et al, 1991), artificial intelligence (Reddy, 1995), and business and information systems engineering (Mertens & Barbian, 2015), the discourse on grand challenges has been relatively more extensive. This opens up opportunities to outline grand challenges' major attributes and approaches in management research as it regards the development of conceptual clarity and practical knowledge (e.g., Kunisch et al, 2023; Seelos et al, 2023; Suddaby, 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customers driving a firm's responsible innovation response for grand challenges: A co‐active issue‐selling perspective

Degbey,

Pelto,

Öberg

et al. 2023

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grand challenges vary across industries and call for firms to craft a responsible innovation response to effectively address them. However, key questions concerning why firms embrace responsible innovation and the process by which they respond to grand challenges have yet to be fully answered. We integrate an issue‐selling theoretical lens and the customer role from an innovation perspective to theorize about the different influencing motives that customers exert on their corresponding supplying firm to craft a more responsible innovation response to grand challenges. Based on qualitative data collected in almost a 10‐year period from multiple respondents across eight customer firms and two supplying firms, we identify three core motives—regulatory, business opportunity, and socio‐environmental motives—that propel customers to influence supplying firms to craft different forms of responsible innovation responses. Our research also reveals three vital socio‐human capital pathways—human capital, socio‐behavioral, and relationship—which, in turn, foster a co‐active engagement in addressing grand challenges innovatively and responsibly. In so doing, this research advances novel theorizing on co‐active engagement in responsible innovation where the customer acts as the primary champion and the supplier as the implementer. We discuss the important implications for customers and other stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customers driving a firm's responsible innovation response for grand challenges: A co‐active issue‐selling perspective

Degbey,

Pelto,

Öberg

et al. 2023

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firstly, authors strategically used GC as a theme to define a discipline's research priorities to build momentum around topics considered to generate the highest scientific, social, or commercial payoffs. Examples are Haux (1997) in medical informatics or Simons et al (1991) in computing research. Secondly, authors symbolically adopted the term GC to rejuvenate scholarship and the reputation of scientific disciplines by associating research efforts with a larger noble idea.…”

Section: Motives For Adopting Gc In Other Scientific Disciplinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples are Haux (1997) in medical informatics or Simons et al. (1991) in computing research. Secondly, authors symbolically adopted the term GC to rejuvenate scholarship and the reputation of scientific disciplines by associating research efforts with a larger noble idea.…”

Section: Conceptual Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of grand challenges research: Retiring a hopeful concept and endorsing research principles

Seelos

Mair

Traeger

2022

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editorial notes in leading management journals have urged scholars to address Grand Challenges (GC) as an opportunity for producing knowledge that matters for society. This review explores whether current conceptualizations of GC support a productive path for management and organizational scholarship by guiding empirical inquiry, facilitating cumulative theory development, and informing practice. We systematically examine scholarly articles, calls for papers, and editorial notes published in management journals for consistency in how researchers use and define the concept of GC and the scope of associated phenomena and attributes. We find three prominent conceptual architectures in use: discursive, family resemblance, and phenomenon driven. The variety and incoherence of current uses of the GC concept and the lack of efforts to improve its analytical competence lead us to suggest its retirement. Instead, we propose building on the enthusiasm around GC research and using GC as a term to define research principles that collectively help align research efforts and improve theoretical development and practice. The principles we propose capture a genuine origin story for management research on GC.

show abstract