On trees and triviality traps: Locating the debate on the contribution of cognitive mapping to organizational research

Daniels, Kevin ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8620-886X and Johnson, Gerry (2002) On trees and triviality traps: Locating the debate on the contribution of cognitive mapping to organizational research. Organization Studies, 23 (1). pp. 73-81. ISSN 0170-8406

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

In his critique of Daniels et al. (2002), Hodgkinson (2001a) raises a number of issues concerning the use and comparison of ideographic cognitive maps. Hodgkinson claims that there are problems associated with global similarity ratings, and that ideographic methods should be replaced by methods that have some nomothetic component. In reply, we show that the specific issues raised by Hodgkinson are not at all problematic in the context of the research questions addressed by Daniels et al. We examine Hodgkinson's proposed alternative and explain why it would not be appropriate for the questions addressed by Daniels et al. We then argue that Hodgkinson's approach, far from being a panacea for problems in cognitive mapping research, will deflect from the issues of real debate in this area.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	cognition,cognitive mapping,institutional environment,institutional theory,mental methods,task environment
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Norwich Business School
UEA Research Groups:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Research Groups > Employment Systems and Institutions
Depositing User:	Pure Connector
Date Deposited:	12 Dec 2013 09:42
Last Modified:	19 Oct 2023 01:12
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/45213
DOI:	10.1177/0170840602231004

Actions (login required)

View Item