IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abg/anprac/v27y2023i31577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using deep learning language models as scaffolding tools in interpretive research

Author

Listed:
  • André Luis Araujo da Fonseca
  • Paula Castro Pires de Souza Chimenti
  • Maribel Carvalho Suarez

Abstract

Objective: the paper introduces a framework for conducting interpretive research using deep learning algorithms that blur the boundaries between qualitative and quantitative approaches. The work evidences how research might benefit from an integrated approach that uses computational tools to overcome traditional limitations. Proposal: the increased availability and diversity of data raises the utility of algorithms as research tools for social scientists. Furthermore, tuning and using such computational artifacts may benefit from interpretive procedures. Such circumstances turn the traditional debate between quantitative and qualitative research on its head: the research strategy that likely yields the most assertiveness and rigor is the one that may require vigorous hermeneutic effort. Along these lines, neural word embeddings can be instrumental in allowing researchers to read the data closely before and after interpretation. Conclusions: to take advantage of the opportunity generated by these new algorithms, researchers may broaden their previous conceptions and adopt a participative point of view. In the coming decades, the interweaving of computational and interpretive methods has the potential to integrate rigorous social science research.

Suggested Citation

  • André Luis Araujo da Fonseca & Paula Castro Pires de Souza Chimenti & Maribel Carvalho Suarez, 2023. "Using deep learning language models as scaffolding tools in interpretive research," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 27(Vol. 27 N), pages 230021-2300.
  • Handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:27:y:2023:i:3:1577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1577
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://rac.anpad.org.br/index.php/rac/article/view/1577/1887
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    2. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bartschat, Maria & Cziehso, Gerrit & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, 2022. "Searching for word of mouth in the digital age: Determinants of consumers’ uses of face-to-face information, internet opinion sites, and social media," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 393-409.
    2. Antioco, Michael & Coussement, Kristof, 2018. "Misreading of consumer dissatisfaction in online product reviews: Writing style as a cause for bias," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 301-310.
    3. Bing Jing, 2011. "Social Learning and Dynamic Pricing of Durable Goods," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 851-865, September.
    4. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    5. Steven M. Shugan, 2006. "Editorial: Who Is Afraid to Give Freedom of Speech to Marketing Folks?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 403-410, September.
    6. Wang, Cheng-Jun & Yan, Lihan & Cui, Haochuan, 2023. "Unpacking the essential tension of knowledge recombination: Analyzing the impact of knowledge spanning on citation impact and disruptive innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    7. Sha Yang & Vishal Narayan & Henry Assael, 2006. "Estimating the Interdependence of Television Program Viewership Between Spouses: A Bayesian Simultaneous Equation Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 336-349, July.
    8. Zakaria Babutsidze, 2012. "If you love it I'll probably hate it : local interaction among consumers of information goods," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2012-24, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    9. Rahat Ullah & Wonjoon Kim & Naveen C. Amblee & Hyunjong Lee & Alice Oh, 2014. "Do Emotions Matter? Exploring The Distribution Of Emotions In Online Product Reviews," Working papers 156, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    10. Naudé, Wim, 2024. "Is the Scholarly Field of Entrepreneurship at Its End?," IZA Discussion Papers 16916, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Rosalie L. Tung & Gary Knight & Pervez Ghauri & Shameen Prashantham & Tony Fang, 2023. "Disruptive knowledge in international business research: A pipe dream or attainable target?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(9), pages 1589-1598, December.
    12. Sulin Ba & Yuan Jin & Xinxin Li & Xianghua Lu, 2020. "One Size Fits All? The Differential Impact of Online Reviews and Coupons," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(10), pages 2403-2424, October.
    13. Cheng Zhao & Chong Alex Wang, 2023. "A cross-site comparison of online review manipulation using Benford’s law," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 365-406, March.
    14. Hu, Ye & Li, Xinxin, 2011. "Context-Dependent Product Evaluations: An Empirical Analysis of Internet Book Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 123-133.
    15. Daniele Dalli & Annamaria Tuan & David D?Acunto, 2018. "How online reviewers and actual customers evaluate their shopping experiences. Evidence from an international retail chain," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 163-180.
    16. Sha Yang & Mantian (Mandy) Hu & Russell S. Winer & Henry Assael & Xiaohong Chen, 2012. "An Empirical Study of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Consumption," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 952-963, November.
    17. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    18. Mingyang Zhang & Heyan Xu & Ning Ma & Xinglin Pan, 2022. "Intelligent Vehicle Sales Prediction Based on Online Public Opinion and Online Search Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Caner Dincer & Banu Dincer, 2015. "Key Factors of Online Customer Satisfaction," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(7), pages 97-111, July.
    20. Ilan Lobel & Evan Sadler & Lav R. Varshney, 2017. "Customer Referral Incentives and Social Media," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3514-3529, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abg:anprac:v:27:y:2023:i:3:1577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Information Technology of ANPAD (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://anpad.org.br .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.