RSCH 8210K Walden University Qualitative Research & Corporate Social Responsibility Discussion



RSCH 8210K

Walden University


Question Description

Part I

  • Review the chapters in the Saldaña text found in this week’s Learning Resources.
  • Review the Introduction to Coding and From Content to Coding media programs in the Learning Resources.
  • Refer back to your observational field notes from the Scholars of Change Videos from Weeks 1–4.
  • Choose one of the four Scholars of Change videos and refer to your field notes from your observation.
  • Access the transcript you downloaded for the media program of the Scholars of Change video you selected for this Discussion.
  • Begin to code the transcript and the observational field notes of the Scholar of Change Video you chose.
  • (Note: You will only need one or two codes for this Discussion, although more are acceptable.)
  • Post a brief description of the video you chose. Next, include an example of one or two codes and provide quotes from your notes or transcript to support your example. Finally, explain your reasoning for this coding.

    Information attached

    Part II

  • Choose one of the three social change literature review articles found in this week’s Learning Resources and review the article in detail.
  • Explore the Walden Social Change website and locate an additional document, video, or webpage that will inform your understanding of the meaning of positive social change. Reflect on any additional sources you find.
  • Next, write field notes based on the information you gathered from the Walden social change website and any other documents or websites that might inform your changing impressions about the meaning of positive social change.
  • Finally, review the media programs related to coding and consider how you will use this information to support this Discussion. Note: In your Excel Video Coding template there is a tab for your website data. Use this tab to place your content and codes for the website.
  • Prepare a brief explanation of your understanding of the meaning of positive social change thus far. Refer to the additional sources you have reviewed this week, and comment on how they are shaping your experience. Use the data you gathered from your analytic memo to support your explanation.

    Be sure to support your main post and response post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA style.

    Information attached

    Unformatted Attachment Preview

    Journal of Management Vol. 38 No. 4, July 2012 932-968 DOI: 10.1177/0149206311436079 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: http://www. What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda Herman Aguinis Indiana University Ante Glavas University of Notre Dame The authors review the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature based on 588 journal articles and 102 books and book chapters. They offer a multilevel and multidisciplinary theoretical framework that synthesizes and integrates the literature at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. The framework includes reactive and proactive predictors of CSR actions and policies and the outcomes of such actions and policies, which they classify as primarily affecting internal (i.e., internal outcomes) or external (i.e., external outcomes) stakeholders. The framework includes variables that explain underlying mechanisms (i.e., relationship- and value-based mediator variables) of CSR–outcomes relationships and contingency effects (i.e., people-, place-, price-, and profile-based moderator variables) that explain conditions under which the relationship between CSR and its outcomes change. The authors’ review reveals important knowledge gaps related to the adoption of different theoretical orientations by researchers studying CSR at different levels of analysis, the need to understand underlying mechanisms linking CSR with outcomes, the need for research at micro levels of analysis (i.e., individuals and teams), and the need for methodological approaches that will help address these substantive knowledge gaps. Accordingly, they offer a detailed research agenda for the future, based on a multilevel perspective that aims to integrate diverse theoretical frameworks as well as develop an understanding of underlying mechanisms and microfoundations of CSR (i.e., foundations based on individual action and interactions). The authors also provide specific suggestions regarding research design, measurement, and data-analytic approaches that will be instrumental in carrying out their proposed research agenda. Keywords:  corporate social responsibility; sustainability; microfoundations of corporate social responsibility; corporate citizenship; corporate social performance Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer. Both authors contributed equally to this research. We thank Deborah Rupp and two Journal of Management anonymous reviewers for excellent and highly constructive comments that allowed us to improve our work substantially. We also thank Edward J. Conlon, Georges Enderle, William C. Frederick, and Sandra Waddock for their helpful comments and advice on earlier versions of our manuscript. Corresponding author: Herman Aguinis, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-170, USA E-mail: 932 Aguinis, Glavas / Corporate Social Responsibility   933 Scholars have studied firms’ social concerns for many decades (e.g., Berle, 1931; Bowen, 1953; Davis, 1960; Dodd, 1932; Frederick, 1960). However, it is only recently that interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more widespread (Serenko & Bontis, 2009; Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). To avoid confusion given the different conceptualizations available (Carroll, 1999; Peloza, 2009; Waddock, 2004), we use the definition of CSR as offered by Aguinis (2011: 855) and adopted by others (e.g., Rupp, 2011; Rupp, Williams, & Aguilera, 2010): “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance.” Although the definition of CSR refers to policies and actions by organizations, such policies and actions are influenced and implemented by actors at all levels of analysis (e.g., institutional, organizational, and individual). As the field of CSR has evolved, scholars have written literature reviews addressing important yet specific research questions. For example, Peloza (2009) focused on how to measure the impact of CSR on financial performance, Carroll (1999) and Waddock (2004) explored the operationalization of CSR as well as differences and sometimes confusing overlaps between CSR and similar constructs, Wood (2010) reviewed the literature on how to measure CSR, and Peloza and Shang (2011) conducted a review of how CSR can create value for stakeholders. In addition, other reviews of the CSR literature have focused on specific disciplines such as marketing (Enderle & Murphy, 2009; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004); organizational behavior (OB), human resource management (HRM), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology (Aguinis, 2011); operations (Brammer, Hoejmose, & Millington, 2011); and information systems (Elliot, 2011). In spite of the reviews published thus far, the CSR literature remains highly fragmented. As noted by Waddock, “Parallel and sometimes confusing universes exist” (2004: 5). One reason for this fragmentation is that scholars study CSR through different disciplinary and conceptual lenses (Carroll, 1999; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Waddock, 2004). Moreover, the CSR literature is fragmented regarding levels of analysis. First, CSR is usually studied from one level of analysis at a time. Second, CSR is primarily studied at the macro level (i.e., institutional or organizational level) compared to the micro level (i.e., individual level). Accordingly, there is a need for a multilevel and multidisciplinary review in which the vast and diverse extant literature can be integrated and synthesized in a coherent and comprehensive manner. In contrast to previously published reviews, our article provides an integration of the large and highly heterogeneous CSR literature originating in such fields as environmental studies, OB, HRM, marketing, organizational theory, and strategy, among others. We offer a general model to synthesize previously published work at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. Building upon this general model, we provide a critical analysis of what we know (i.e., where we have been) and what we do not know (i.e., where we need to go) about CSR. Accordingly, our review makes the following value-added contributions. First, we address the need for multilevel models of CSR (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Second, because of our multilevel approach, our review also helps bridge the much lamented micro–macro divide in the field of management (Aguinis, Boyd, Pierce, & Short, 2011). Third, our integrative model incorporates 934    Journal of Management / July 2012 mediators and moderators that will enable future research to clarify the various possible roles for key constructs and improve our understanding of underlying processes (i.e., mediating effects) and conditions under which (i.e., moderating effects) CSR leads to specific outcomes. Finally, our review uncovers critical knowledge gaps and provides clear and specific directions for future research as well as suggestions regarding methodological approaches— an informative road map in terms of future research. Scope of the Review Our review relies on information extracted from 588 journal articles and 102 books and book chapters (please see the appendix for a description of our literature search procedures). We modeled the scope and structure of our review on others published in the Journal of Management (e.g., Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008; Nicholls-Nixon, Castilla, Garcia, & Pesquera, 2011). In conducting our literature review, we systematically focused on two issues. First, in each source we identified predictors of CSR, outcomes of CSR, and mediators and moderators of CSR–outcomes relationships. Predictors in our model are antecedents of CSR actions and policies (i.e., CSR initiatives). Outcomes are those that result from CSR initiatives. Mediators are those variables that explain the underlying processes and mechanisms of why CSR initiatives are related to an outcome, while moderators describe the conditions under which CSR initiatives influence outcomes. Second, in each source we focused on identifying relationships among variables at the institutional, organizational, and individual levels of analysis. Although no review is completely inclusive, the aforementioned two principles allowed us to synthesize and integrate the vast and diverse extant CSR literature. Our intent is not to provide an exhaustive historical review that summarizes all of the valuable contributions from CSR scholars over the past century (for a historical review, see Carroll, 2008). Rather, we offer a general theoretical framework that is broad and that allows for the inclusion of more variables in the future, thereby opening the possibility that knowledge regarding CSR will continue to accumulate in a more systematic fashion. Results of our literature search, summarized in Tables 1 and 2, reveal the following. First, in the entire set of 588 articles, there are slightly more conceptual (i.e., 53%) than empirical (i.e., 47%) articles (see Table 1). Second, a content analysis based on the subset of 181 articles published in 17 journals that do not specialize in CSR revealed an increased interest in the topic over time (see Table 2). In the 1970s, there were 23 articles published, which then dropped to 16 in the 1980s. From 1990 to 2005, the number of articles published per year doubled. Since 2005, the number of publications has greatly accelerated, and almost half (43%) of the CSR articles have been published since 2005. Third, regarding level-of-analysis issues, 33% of the articles focused on the institutional level, 57% on the organizational level, 4% on the individual level, and 5% addressed two or more levels. In short, our literature search revealed that there is a balance between the number of conceptual and empirical articles. However, there is a clear imbalance in terms of levels of analysis; the vast majority of articles address the institutional and organizational levels of analysis, and there is very little research adopting an individual or multilevel approach. Aguinis, Glavas / Corporate Social Responsibility   935 Table 1 Summary of Literature Search Results Including Journals Specializing in Corporate Social Responsibility and Related Topics, n (%) Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Review Administrative Science Quarterly Business & Society Business Ethics Quarterly International Journal of Management Reviews Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Business Ethics Journal of International Business Studies Journal of Management Journal of Management Studies Journal of Marketing Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Journal of Organizational Behavior Organization Science Organization Studies Personnel Psychology Strategic Management Journal Other journals Total Empirical 32 (86) 2 (4) 3 (75) 12 (44) 8 (57) 154 (45) 6 (86) 6 (55) 11 (65) 5 (100) 2 (100) 1 (50) 6 (75) 1 (100) 15 (94) 7 (47) 271 (47) Conceptual 5 (14) 45 (96) 1 (25) 15 (56) 11 (100) 9 (100) 6 (43) 188 (55) 1 (14) 5 (45) 6 (35) 1 (100) 1 (50) 2 (25) 1 (6) 8 (53) 305 (53) Total 37 (6) 47 (8) 4 (1) 27 (5) 11 (2) 9 (2) 14 (2) 0 (0) 342 (58) 7 (1) 11 (2) 17 (3) 5 (1) 2 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 8 (1) 1 (0) 16 (3) 27 (5) 588 Table 2 Summary of Literature Search Results Excluding Journals Specializing in Corporate Social Responsibility and Related Topics, n (%) Years and Level of Analysis Publication years 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004 2005-2011 Total Level of analysis Institutional Organizational Individual Multilevel: institutional and organizational Multilevel: organizational and individual Multilevel: institutional, organizational, and individual Total Empirical Conceptual Total 9 (39) 9 (56) 26 (62) 16 (70) 38 (49) 98 14 (61) 7 (44) 16 (38) 7 (30) 39 (51) 83 23 (13) 16 (9) 42 (23) 23 (13) 77 (43) 181 36 (60) 50 (48) 5 (62.5) 3 (75) 3 (100) 1 (50) 98 24 (40) 54 (52) 3 (37.5) 1 (25) 0 1 (50) 83 60 (33) 104 (57) 8 (4) 4 (2) 3 (2) 2 (1) 181 Note: These results refer to the 17 journals included in the content analysis as described in the appendix. 936    Journal of Management / July 2012 What We Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: Institutional, Organizational, and Individual Levels of Analysis In the following sections, we critically review the CSR literature at each level of analysis (i.e., institutional, organizational, and individual). Each of the sections includes a summary table in which predictors, outcomes, mediators, and moderators are listed at each specific level. Also, although we will not describe in the text all of the studies summarized in the tables, these tables provide a fast and accessible way to locate sources addressing various types of relationships at different levels of analysis. Later in our article, we will refer back to these tables when we discuss specific future research directions in the context of describing what we do not know about CSR—knowledge gaps that should be addressed in the future. Note that the tables represent variables as they were studied in the published sources, so some of the variables were studied in multiple roles (e.g., as a predictor in one study and as a moderator in another study). Institutional Level of Analysis Articles focusing on the institutional level of analysis address at least one of Scott’s (1995) three pillars of institutions: normative, cultural-cognitive, and regulative elements. So, for example, articles addressing laws and standards, which are regulative elements (Scott, 1995), are classified as addressing CSR at the institutional level of analysis. Similarly, articles addressing constructs that are shaped by society, consumers, and stakeholders external to the firm, which are cultural-cognitive and normative elements (Scott, 1995), are also classified as focusing on the institutional level of analysis. Predictors. As shown in Table 3, firms engage in CSR due to institutional pressures, particularly from stakeholders (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Boal & Peery, 1985; Sharma & Henriques, 2005; Stevens, Steensma, Harrison, & Cochran, 2005). Over three decades ago, Grunig (1979) found that different stakeholders have different expectations regarding a firm’s CSR. More recent work has revealed that stakeholders take on different roles and engage in different activities while attempting to influence firms to engage in CSR. Specifically, stakeholders can be shareholders (David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007), consumers (Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), the media (Davidson & Worrell, 1988; Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999a, 1999b), the local community (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007), and interest groups (Greening & Gray, 1994). Regardless of their specific role, Aguilera et al. (2007) theorized that stakeholders have three main motives for pressuring firms to engage in CSR: (1) instrumental (i.e., self-interest driven), (2) relational (i.e., based on a concern with relationships among group members), and (3) moral (i.e., based on a concern with ethical standards and moral principles). The ways in which stakeholders can serve as catalysts for CSR initiatives are quite diverse. For example, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) found that customers influence firms through their evaluations and product purchasing, and Christmann and Taylor (2006) ascertained that customers also exert influence through customer monitoring and expected sanctions. Also, 937 Mediators of CSR–Outcomes Relationship Conceptual papers Empirical Papers Activist group pressures (den Hond & de Firm reputation and goodwill Bakker, 2007) with external stakeholders Economic conditions (Campbell, 2007) (Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Stakeholder instrumental, relational, and Rynes, 2003) moral motives (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, Customers & Ganapathi, 2007) • Customer satisfaction (Lev, Stakeholder psychological needs Petrovits, & Radhakrishnan, (Aguilera et al., 2007) 2010; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006) Empirical papers • Customer–organization fit Institutional and stakeholder pressure (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) • Stakeholder influence/pressure (Boal & • Consumer trust (Vlachos, Peery, 1985; Brammer & Millington, 2008; Tsamakos, Vrechopoulus, & Greening & Gray, 1994; Henriques & Avramidis, 2009) Sadorsky, 1999; Sharma & Henriques, 2005; Stevens, Steensma, Harrison, & Cochran, 2005) • Shareholder activism (–) (David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007) • Mimetic forces (Nikolaeva & Bicho, 2011) • Trade-related pressures (Boal & Peery, 1985; Muller & Kolk, 2010) • Media pressure (Davidson & Worrell, 1988; Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999a, 1999b) Predictors of CSR Empirical Papers Customers • Consumer beliefs and support for CSR (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) • Sensitivity to consumer perceptions (Lev et al., 2010) • Consumer perceptions of need of cause, reputation of firm, and firm motives of cause (Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000) Conceptual Papers Stakeholders • Consumer information intensity (Schuler & Cording, 2006) • Public perception of firm CSR (Lev et al., 2010) Other • National and transnational frameworks such as culture, politics, financial, labor, education systems, and practices (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003) • Institutional conditions: regulation, monitoring, norms, and stakeholder dialogue (Campbell, 2007) Moderators of CSR–Outcomes Relationship (continued) Empirical Papers Reputation of firm (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Turban & Greening, 1997; Verschoor, 1998; Waddock & Graves, 1997b) Consumer evaluation of product/company (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Ellen et al., 2000; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) Consumer choice of company/product (Arora & Henderson, 2007; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) Customer loyalty (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999) Outcomes of CSR Table 3 Summary of Conceptual and Empirical Research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at the Institutional Level of Analysis 938 • Customer evaluation and purchasing decisions (Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) • Customer monitoring of firm (Christmann & Taylor, 2006) • Stakeholder power, legitimacy, and urgency (Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999) • Local community pressure (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007) • Shareholder activism (Rehbein, Waddock, & Graves, 2004) • Management of quality relationships with stakeholders (Hillman & Keim, 2001) • Influence of organizational field (i.e., group of organizations to which the firm is aligned) (Hoffman, 1999) Regulations and standards • Regulations/compliance (Buehler & Shetty, 1974; Fineman & Clarke, 1996) • Standards and certification (Christmann & Taylor, 2006; Tenbrunsel, Wade-Benzoni, Messick, & Bazerman, 2000) • Expectations from public at large (Grunig, 1979) • Perceived CSR by consumers (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001) Third-party evaluations • Addition/deletion to social index (Doh, Howton, Howton, & Siegel, 2010) • Environmental ratings (Chatterji & Toffel, 2010) Predictors of CSR Mediators of CSR–Outcomes Relationship Other stakeholders • Salience of shareholder to firm (David et al., 2007) • Stakeholder familiarity with firm (Turban & Greening, 1997) • Stakeholder genuine concern attributes (Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006) • Activism of owners of large investment funds (Neubaum & Zahra, 2006) • Cohesion with organizational field, which is a group of organizations to which the firm is aligned (Bansal & Roth, 2000) • Firm visibility to stakeholder ...
    Purchase answer to see full attachment
    Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

    Final Answer


    Running head: PART 1


    Discussion Part 1

    Student’s Name
    Institutional Affiliation
    Course Name
    Professor’s Name


    Discussion 1

    Brief Description
    The selected video is a narration by Jackie Kundert, a mother and nurse in Green County,
    that entails change. In the narrative, Kundert talks about the issue of drug overdose and the
    implication the problem has on society. On a personal level, Kundert explains how her som
    ended up on prescription pain medication culminating in the addiction to the drug (Kundert,
    2016). As a nurse, Kundert resulted in a social change campaign against drug overdose with the
    intent of impacting the community positively through a foundation called FAITH. Kundert
    intended to reach out to the communities by gathering vital information with the capacity to
    inform her actions on inspiring the population across the nation.
    Example of Codes and Respective Quotes

    rculxnz (10391)
    Rice University

    Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

    Similar Questions
    Related Tags