IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v57y2006i11d10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intelligent thinking instead of critical realism?

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Chiasson

    (Lancaster University Management School)

  • Robert Fildes

    (Lancaster University Management School)

  • Mike Pidd

    (Lancaster University Management School)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Chiasson & Robert Fildes & Mike Pidd, 2006. "Intelligent thinking instead of critical realism?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(11), pages 1373-1375, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:57:y:2006:i:11:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602234
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602234
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas R. Willemain, 1995. "Model Formulation: What Experts Think About and When," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 916-932, December.
    2. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    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. Merrick, James H. & Weyant, John P., 2019. "On choosing the resolution of normative models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 511-523.
    2. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    3. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    4. Richard Ormerod, 2006. "The OR approach to forecasting: comments on Mingers' paper," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(11), pages 1371-1373, November.
    5. Keys, Paul, 2000. "Creativity, design and style in MS/OR," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 303-312, June.
    6. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    7. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    8. M C Jackson, 2011. "The multi-methodology debate: a response to Harwood," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 811-813, April.
    9. T R Willemain & S G Powell, 2007. "How novices formulate models. Part II: a quantitative description of behaviour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(10), pages 1271-1283, October.
    10. Frederic H. Murphy, 2005. "ASP, The Art and Science of Practice: Elements of a Theory of the Practice of Operations Research: Expertise in Practice," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 313-322, August.
    11. P Keys, 2006. "On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 822-829, July.
    12. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    13. J Mingers, 2011. "Clarification or confusion: response to Harwood," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 809-811, April.
    14. Michael Wood, 2013. "Making Statistical Methods More Useful," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, February.
    15. S A Harwood, 2011. "Mixing methodologies and paradigmatic commensurability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 806-809, April.
    16. Michael Pidd, 1999. "Just Modeling Through: A Rough Guide to Modeling," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 118-132, April.
    17. C Mar-Molinero & J Mingers, 2007. "An evaluation of the limitations of, and alternatives to, the Co-Plot methodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(7), pages 874-886, July.
    18. Zichong Lyu & Dirk Pons & Yilei Zhang & Zuzhen Ji, 2022. "Minimum Viable Model (MVM) Methodology for Integration of Agile Methods into Operational Simulation of Logistics," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-28, June.
    19. Mingers, John, 2015. "Helping business schools engage with real problems: The contribution of critical realism and systems thinking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 316-331.
    20. S Robinson, 2008. "Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: definition and requirements," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(3), pages 278-290, March.

    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:pal:jorsoc:v:57:y:2006:i:11:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602234. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.