Transformative service research and service dominant logic: Quo Vaditis?

Abstract

This paper takes a closer look at the emerging topic of transformative service research (TSR) and compares its facets with the more established concept of the service-dominant logic (SDL). The paper thus contributes to both theory development and practical application. This work highlights the conceptual parallels in the two approaches, for example, their holistic approach, their systems thinking, addressing entities or actors within such system(s), inclusion of the wider environment, and their focus on the co-creative and interactive nature of well-being generation and value co-creation. The paper also reveals some differences, for example TSR's focus on eudaimonic and hedonic well-being outcomes vs. SDL's value co-creation. The paper concludes that both perspectives have merits, but could benefit from being used integratively. By comparing the areas of theory focus, practical application, value co-creation and co-destruction, intentionality, well-being and value concepts, and TSR and SDL's "logic", the paper provides suggestions for future research.

Representative co-production: broadening the scope of the public service logic

“…In Figure 1, PSL integrating social context recognizes the impact of social structures on individual's actions and interactions. In an extended SDL fashion (Blocker and Barrios 2015;Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder 2016), the starting point in the illustrative case was to investigate disparities in the screening program to identify groups not reached by healthcare services. Representatives were involved to increase understanding of what constrained disregarded groups' value-creation processes (Anderson et al 2013;Anderson and Ostrom 2015).…”

“…Expanding on the notion that value may not only be created but also destroyed (Alford 2016; Echeverri and Skålén 2011), transformative service research claims that destruction should be understood in relation to other groups: in efforts emphasizing one group's well-being, another group's well-being may be diminished or destroyed (Anderson and Ostrom 2015;Anderson et al 2013). Thus, it is argued that a greater focus should be put on identifying disparities between groups concerning items such as well-being and possibilities to achieve well-being, and on actively improving wellbeing for disadvantaged groups (Anderson et al 2013;Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder 2016). Moreover, this should be achieved in a collaborative fashion with members of these groups; for example, 'to find the best tools that help them reduce their own poverty' (Fisk et al 2016, 52).…”

Bi-directional and stratified demeanour in value forming service encounter interactions

“…The identified classification reveals the interactive mechanisms that directly influence the well-being and the quality of lives of people with functional limitations. In that sense the study also contributes to the transformative research agenda (Anderson and Ostrom 2015;Anderson et al, 2013;Kuppelwieser and Finsterwalder, 2016;Ostrom et al, 2010), which includes services that ensure access to public settings for people with functional limitations, that add to their quality of life, and include treatments in non-discriminating ways.…”

The dark side of the sharing economy: Balancing value co‐creation and value co‐destruction

“…TSR has conceptual parallels with the service‐dominant logic (S‐D logic; Vargo & Lusch, 2008). These include the holistic approaches of TSR and S‐D logic; systems thinking; the method of addressing entities or actors within such system(s); the inclusion of the wider environment; and “their focus on the co‐creative and interactive nature of well‐being generation and value co‐creation” (Kuppelwieser & Finsterwalder, 2016, p.91).…”