 Koncepts- ja teoreissa ovat asioita asioita sosiaali- ja sosiaali-reiseksiä. Kun sinä olet ymmärtävä ymmärtävä ymmärtävä teorea, se olisi vaikea ymmärtää, mitä se teore on, sillä sinä olet ymmärtävä ymmärtävä teoreissa. Se on tärkeintä, että se on tärkeintä, sen kuten se on tärkeintä, ja ymmärtää se on työn tau Institutus. The definition is provided by an on it is assumed to become a knowledge, sometimes you need elsewhere to look. Without understanding how the concepts are defined in an article. It is very difficult to understand what the article is about. Jotenkin teori on tärkeintä ymmärtää praktiikkia. Mutta sosiaali- ja science-pohjelmasta, teori on tärkeintä ymmärtävä. Teori on seuraavaa kokemuksia kursallisuudestaan yhteistyöksiä. Ja tietysti teori ei vain sanoa, että X kurssi on Y, mutta teori myös explains the causal process. How, when and why, x causes y. For example, we could have a proposition, which is a basic causal claim within a theory that innovativeness causes companies to be more successful. Then to have a theory to support a proposition, we would have to explain the different causal pathways or the different mechanisms through which innovativeness causes companies to be more successful. For example, we could say that innovativeness allows companies to come up with better products, better products allow them to capture more market share and that allows them to grow and be more profitable. We could also say that innovativeness allows them to have improved processes, less scrap, more efficiency, therefore lower costs and more profitability. So that kind of how, when and why explanation is required for a theory along with the proposition, which states the key causal relationship that the theory is about. Quite often theories contain multiple propositions, so we might have, for example, a theory that early international expansion leads to growth, but it also leads to a higher risk of failure. Now, let's take a look at concepts. And our example article is by Harissa Pients and co-authors from 2006 in academic management review, which is an article, a journal that publishes only non-emperical articles. So a non-emperical article is an article that advances some kind of theoretical argument, presents some kind of theory, but does not present any evidence backing a theory. So these kind of articles present a new idea but don't necessarily test the idea. So let's take a look at the theory of this paper and how we can make sense of this paper. Of course you can start reading the paper from the first line and proceed like you would read a novel from the beginning to the end and hope that you will understand it as you go. But that's not the most efficient way of trying to understand a more effective, more most efficient and effective way of understanding an article. It's better to first skim through the article to get an idea of what the article is about and then try to identify the key concepts. What you're basically looking for when you evaluate an article that presents a theory is something like this. So this article presents a graphical summary of all the propositions. So each of these propositions, there are eight in total, is a causal claim that the article also explains. Once you start to read an article, the first thing that you need to understand or identify is what are the key concepts and then how are they defined. It's pretty obvious that because each of these books presents a concept, these boxes at least should be considered the key concepts. And once we have the key concepts, we need to identify how are the concepts causally related. So each of these arrows presents a proposition which corresponds to a causal statement. So the article says that once you decide to go international, that actually decreases the probability of survival. And then the article contains an explanation of why that is so. But that's not the only place where you find these concepts. You need to also look at the concepts within the arrows. So the arrows present the causal mechanisms. And you need to look at the why. Why do these arrows exist? What kind of concepts are used to explain the mechanisms that there are in these arrows? And then once you have identified all the concepts, you need to understand what the concepts are about. If we just look at these boxes, six boxes here, probably the firm survival. We understand survival means not dying. Growing means getting bigger. That's pretty easy to understand. AIDS pretty easy to understand. Experience we have an intuitive understanding what experience means. But what is research fungibility? So how do we define research fungibility? What is the meaning of this term? And also the theory part, the part that explains the logic behind these arrows, contains concepts such as dynamic capabilities and imprinting. If we go and ask any person at the university what is dynamic capabilities, what is imprinting, what is fungibility, and if that person is not familiar with this literature, they probably have no idea. But to understand this paper, you need to understand these terms. So how do we know what these terms mean? Quite often, once you have identified the key terms, you can start looking for definitions in the article. So this is a good article and it presents definitions. For example, here is the definition of dynamic capabilities. It stated that dynamic capabilities are organizational, strategic, and strategic routines by which firm managers alter a firm's resource base through acquiring, shedding, integrating, recombining resources to generate new value-creating strategies. And, well, a dynamic capability is a special kind of capability, so it's worth also defining what the capability is and how dynamic capabilities differ from other kinds of capabilities. So based on this description, we can understand a dynamic capability, so that allows firms to develop new capabilities or reconfigure existing capabilities. So dynamic capabilities basically are the capability of a firm to adapt to its environment or create new things. If you want to know more, there is citation to Eisenhower and Martin's article from which this definition comes from. So quite often when an article presents a concept and presents a definition, if that article is not the first one to come up with that concept and the definition, they will cite the source or the original source of that concept. So dynamic capabilities was not, or capability was not introduced, the term was not introduced by Eisenhower and Martin, but this definition that this article by Sapiens applies comes from that article. So sometimes we change the definition of a concept because we have realized that how we use the concept is actually evolved or we realize that the existing definition was too imprecise. It was easy to misunderstand or something and then we need to redefine it. Just that everyone has a shared vocabulary and that we understand what we are talking about and both the reader and the author can have the shared meaning for the same concept. And if you want to know more about capabilities, this article points to Nelson and Winter's book and that's a book-length treatment of what routines and capabilities are for those who are more interested. Of course if you're just looking at this article as a part of a coursework or part of a larger review, you probably don't want to go to these original sources, but it's nice to have them available in case you, for example, want to write a dissertation about dynamic capabilities. Here we have a definition of imprinting, so it comes from Hanan and Stitzkampus work and the idea of imprinting is that it is something, it is a process through which something that happens early on in a life cycle has lasting consequences. How would you know what imprinting means? Well, you can look for this definition or you can perhaps put the term in Google, maybe you have seen the term imprinting used in different contexts. But generally when you see a term used the first time in an article, there's a definition for it or at least the definition can be found somewhere near the first use of the term. For example, if the introduction states that there is imprinting involved, then the definition of imprinting might be in the theory part that follows the introduction that explains the imprinting process in Morita. Then we have the definition for fungibility. It relates to whether resources can be used for different purposes. Once we understand what these concepts are about, then it's a lot simpler to understand what the actual theory is about. When you read an article, you need to identify the concepts, you need to identify the definitions and then you can understand. What if a concept is not defined? For example, this article uses the term resource endowment, which it does not present the definition for. Well, we need to first consider, is that the central concept? The answer to this question is no. We don't need to know what is the exact definition of what resource endowment means, but if we have no idea what endowment is, we can simply look at the dictionary definition. So put it in Google and you'll find the definition and endowment is something that you initially have or possess. So resource endowment could be understood as what your initial resources are in a company. Of course, dictionary definitions are not always the same as the definitions used in social science research and sometimes the same term is applied with different definitions in different fields or different contexts. So if you simply want to understand the argument of a paper and the concept is not central to that paper, then dictionary definitions are good enough for you. So use it not shy away from putting things to Google and checking the definitions and try to understand it that way. If you understand the detailing correctly, it does not really make a difference for your understanding of the main idea of the paper. So how do you evaluate articles? How do you understand theory? And how do you understand non-nuclear paper? First of all, you need to identify the key concepts. Quite often the key concepts are presented in the boxes and arrows like this. So boxes are the concepts, arrows are the propositions that state the claimed causal relationships. If an article does not present such a graphic or such a figure as this one, then I quite often myself draw a figure myself. So an article that presents theory quite often as propositions. And propositions are in the form X causes Y. So I will put all the X's in boxes on the Y's in boxes and connect the X's and Y's using arrows. And I'll draw this kind of figure based on what the paper writes. And that helps. Then I start looking at, okay, so what is fungibility? I go through the central concept. Typically there are a few, maybe 10, maybe less, maybe a bit more. And importantly, not all concepts are central. For example, resource endowment is not something that you need to really understand to understand this theory. Then you need to look at the boxes and the explanation of the arrows. Once you have the list of the key concepts, then you start looking at the definitions, what those definitions are. And often found in the article underline the key definitions. If you can't find it in the article, you open the article, you type the concept in the PDF search. If you still can't find the definition, then put it in Google. Sometimes the concept for like age is common knowledge and it does not need to be defined. Once you have identified the key concepts and their definitions, then you read the article. So once you understand what imprinting is, then you are in the position to read and understand why imprinting would have an effect on, for example, a probability of firm growth.