Paradigms, Structures, and Simulations: Advancing Theory Building and Model Testing in Management Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34021/ve.2025.08.01(5)Keywords:
management theory; model testing; structural equation modelling; confirmatory factor analysis; research methodology; epistemological paradigms; virtual environmentsAbstract
The growing complexity of managerial phenomena and the interdisciplinary nature of management science call for more coherent methodological frameworks for theory building and model testing. While management science draws from both technical and social disciplines, its theoretical development remains fragmented and often lacks methodological integration. Previous studies have highlighted inconsistencies between paradigmatic assumptions, modelling strategies, and empirical validation, particularly in the treatment of latent variables. Despite the broad adoption of structural equation modelling (SEM), its potential for bridging theory and empirical evidence in dynamic and virtual contexts remains underexplored. This study aims to conceptualise an integrative approach that connects paradigmatic foundations, structural modelling, and simulation-based testing within virtual environments. By analysing classical and contemporary management paradigms — including functionalist, interpretative, critical, and postmodern perspectives — the paper identifies methodological challenges in aligning theoretical reasoning with empirical analysis. The methodological framework combines SEM procedures, such as confirmatory factor analysis and model fit evaluation, with the use of virtual and simulation-based environments as experimental spaces for theory validation. The findings emphasise that virtual environments enable real-time experimentation, allowing for the iterative refinement of theoretical models under controlled digital conditions. These spaces enhance the reflexivity and reproducibility of management research by enabling researchers to observe the interaction between theoretical constructs and simulated organisational processes. The integration of SEM with simulation techniques demonstrates how theoretical constructs can be dynamically tested and adjusted through virtual modelling. The study concludes that theory building in management science benefits from combining paradigmatic reflection, structural modelling, and virtual experimentation. This triadic framework promotes methodological pluralism, computational adaptivity, and deeper theoretical coherence, suggesting that virtualised modelling environments may become essential tools for future management research and education.
Downloads
References
1. Sułkowski, L. (2012). Epistemologia i metodologia zarządzania. Warsaw: PWE.
2. Dźwigoł, H. (2018). Współczesne procesy badawcze w naukach o zarządzaniu: Uwarunkowania metodyczne i metodologiczne. Warsaw: PWN.
3. Światowiec-Szczepańska, J. (2015). Zaawansowane testowanie modeli badawczych. In W. Czakon (Ed.), Podstawy metodologii badań (pp. 351–378). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer SA.
4. Liu, S., Yang, Y., & Forrest, J. (2016). Grey data analysis: Methods, models and applications (Computational risk management). Singapore: Springer.
5. Xiao-Sheng, S., Zheng-Xin, Z., & Chang-Hua, H. (2017). Data-driven remaining useful life prognosis techniques: Stochastic models, methods and applications. Beijing–Berlin: Springer & National Defense Industry Press.
6. Sułkowski, L. (2015). Paradygmaty i teorie w naukach o zarządzaniu. In W. Czakon (Ed.), Podstawy metodologii badań (pp. 424–442). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer SA.
7. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2001). Metody badawcze w naukach społecznych. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka.
8. Porter, M. E. (1992). Strategia konkurencji: Metody analizy sektorów i konkurentów. Warsaw: PWE.
9. Fayol, H. (1947). Administracja przemysłowa i ogólna. Poznań: Wł. Wilak Bookshop.
10. Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Smircich, L. (1983). Organisations as shared meaning. In L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morgan, & T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organisational symbolism (pp. 160–172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12. Kuhn, T. S. (2001). Struktura rewolucji naukowych. Warsaw: Aletheia.
13. Bielski, M. (1996). Organizacje: istota, struktury, procesy. Łódź: University of Łódź Publishing House.
14. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
15. Hatch, M. J. (2002). Teoria organizacji. Warsaw: PWN.
16. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2005). Understanding management research. London: Sage.
17. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Clegg, S., & Hardy, C. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(S1), 5–17.
19. Babbie, E. (2005). Podstawy badań społecznych. Warsaw: PWN.
20. Kabak, K. E., Hinckeldeyn, J., & Dekkers, R. (2024). A systematic literature review into simulation for building operations management theory: Reaching beyond positivism? Journal of Simulation, 18(5), 687–715.
21. Hannah, D. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tidhar, R. (2018). The value of formal models for management theory. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings.
22. Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012). Assessing common method bias: Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 1003–1019.
23. Mollona, E. (2011). Computational analysis of firms’ organisation and strategic behaviour. Springer.
24. Mollona, E. (2010). Computational analysis of firms’ organisation and strategic behaviour. Springer.
25. Trim, P. R. J., & Lee, Y.-I. (2009). Negotiation-oriented simulation exercises that incorporate business continuity and international security. On the Horizon, 17(4), 378–387.
26. Kamps, J., & Masuch, M. (1997). Partial deductive closure: Logical simulation and management science. Management Science, 43(9), 1229–1245.
27. Morecroft, J. D. (1985). Rationality in the analysis of behavioural simulation models. Management Science, 31(7), 900–916.
28. Sharp, J. A., & Coyle, R. G. (1976). Use of a system dynamics model for the design of a production planning system. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 5(1), 15–28.
29. Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 9(2), 250–284.
30. Bagozzi, E. P. (1982). Introduction to special issue on causal modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 403–404.
31. Górniak, J. (2000). My i nasze pieniądze. Kraków: Aureus.
32. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
33. Sagan, A. (2003). Symbolika produktu w systemie komunikacji marketingowej: Studium teoretyczno-metodologiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe, Seria Specjalna: Monografie, 160. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie.
34. Zieleniewski, J. (1981). Organizacja i zarządzanie. Warsaw: PWN.
35. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach: Comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3), 321–333.
36. Konarski, R. (2009). Modelowanie równań strukturalnych: Teoria i praktyka. Warsaw: PWN.
37. Cwalina, W. (2000). Zastosowanie modelowania równań strukturalnych w naukach społecznych. In Zastosowania statystyki i data mining w badaniach naukowych (pp. 15–23). Warsaw: StatSoft Polska.
38. Bogdanienko, J. (1983). Podstawy badań naukowych. Warsaw: Szkoła Główna Planowania i Statystyki.
39. Rokita, J. (2007). Charakterystyczne cechy nauk o zarządzaniu. In K. Jędralska (Ed.), Współczesne kierunki nauk o zarządzaniu: Księga jubileuszowa z okazji 50-lecia pracy naukowej i dydaktycznej Profesora Jerzego Rokity (p. 29). Katowice: Górnośląska Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa w Katowicach.
40. Sułkowski, Ł. (2005). Epistemologia w naukach o zarządzaniu. Warsaw: PWE.
41. Matejun, M. (2011). Metoda badania przypadków w naukach o zarządzaniu. Economics and Organisation of Enterprise, (10), 93–102.
42. Koźmiński, A. K. (2004). Zarządzanie w warunkach niepewności: Poradnik dla zaawansowanych. Warsaw: PWN.
43. Sułkowski, Ł. (2005). Utopia zarządzania. Organisation Review, (11), 8–12.
44. Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (Eds.). (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide. London: Sage.
45. Huang, L. K., Lin, Y. J., & Lin, T. T. (2005). The nexus between information technology and competitive strategy: A conceptual framework and its hypotheses. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE), 171–178.
46. Wang, Y., Lo, H.-P., & Yang, Y. (2004). The constituents of core competencies and firm performance: Evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 249–280.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.



