Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)

Sumaya Kagoya; Dev Jani; Tinali Gerald Paga

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)

Sumaya Kagoya, Dev Jani, Tinali Gerald Paga

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 6)

Received: 12 August 2020 Accepted: 31 August 2020 Published: 4 November 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Indubitably, for operational research journals articles are meant to entail content to do with Operations research models, theories and fields. This provides organisations and companies with best optimization solutions so as to achieve a competitive age among other benefits. This article aimed appraising the content of the ORSEA Journal articles (2011-2017) to deduce the theoretical, philosophical, methodological, and contextual aspects used in operations research. Using a matrix designed specifically for the study, content analysis was applied and utilised in analysing fifty (50) articles. 21 used theories, 14 developed and used models that emanated from theoretical frameworks and 15 articles which had neither theories nor models. 38 articles used quantitative methods, 6 qualitative approach and 6 mixed methods. Findings revealed that the theoretical contributions of the articles in the context of OR in East Africa are questionable; implying that most of the theories derived in other context can be totally adopted in East Africa which is far from the truth. In addition to the above, the over reliance on positivism and deductive approaches dominant in the ORSEA Journal articles can be complimented with more Interpretivism and inductive approaches that might generate mid-range contextual theories and models.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
Page(s)	212-216
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Theoretical, Contextual, Methodological Elements, Operations Research (OR), ORSEA

References

[1]	Amundson, S. D. (1998). Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. Journal of Operations Management, 16 (3), 341-359.
[2]	Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29 (4), 329-342.
[3]	Boer, H., Holweg, M., Kilduff, M., Pagell, M., Shmenner, R., & Voss, C. (2015). Making a meaningful contribution to theory. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 35 (9), 1231-1252.
[4]	Durbach, I, Scott, L., Nyirenda, J., & Silal, S. (2013). Operational research(ers) in development: growing a new generation of operational researchers. ORiON, 29 (1), 87-102.
[5]	Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical Research Methods in Operations Management. Journal of Operations Management 9 (2), 250-284.
[6]	Gioia, D. A. & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspective on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 584-602.
[7]	Hitt, M., Xu, K., and Carnes, C. M. (2016). Resource based theory in operations management research. Journal of Operations Management, 41 (3), 77-94.
[8]	Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioural Science. Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco.
[9]	Kemp, B. J., &Yousef, D. A. (1995). OR in practice: results of a survey in the United Arab Emirates. European Journal of Operational Research, 80, 25-33.
[10]	Kemball-Cook, D., & Wright, D. J. (1981). The search for appropriate OR: a review of operational research in developing countries. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32, 1024-1037.
[11]	Karatas-Cetin, C., & Denktas-Sakar, G. (2013). Logistic research beyond 2000: theory, method and relevance. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 29 (2), 125-144.
[12]	Ravn, H. F., & Vidal, R. V. V. (1986). Operational research for developing countries-a case of transfer of technology. Journal of the Operational Society, 37, 205-210.
[13]	Schemenner, R. W., Van Wassenhove, L., Ketikivi, M., Heyl, J., and Lusch, R. L. (2009). Too much theory, not enough understanding. Journal of Operations Management, 27 (3), 339-343.
[14]	Shmenner, R. W. and Swink, M. L. (1998). On theory in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 17 (2), 97-113.
[15]	Smith, D. K. (2008). A bibliography applications of operational research in West Africa. International Transactions in Operational Research, 15, 121-150.
[16]	Van De Ven, A. H. V. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 486-489.
[17]	Walker, H., Chicksand, D., Radnor, Z., & Watson, G. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in operations management: an analysis of the literature. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 35 (8), 1182-1206.
[18]	Wacker, J. G. (2004). A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building measurement instruments. Journal of Operations Management, 22 (6), 629-650.
[19]	White, L., Smith, H., & Currie, C. (2011). OR in developing countries: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 208 (1), 1-11.
[20]	Wu, D., Xie, Y., Dai, Q., & Li, J. (2016). A systematic overview of operations research/management science research in Mainland China: Bibliometric analysis of the period 2001-2013. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 33 (6).

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sumaya Kagoya, Dev Jani, Tinali Gerald Paga. (2020). Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Social Sciences, 9(6), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sumaya Kagoya; Dev Jani; Tinali Gerald Paga. Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(6), 212-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sumaya Kagoya, Dev Jani, Tinali Gerald Paga. Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Soc Sci. 2020;9(6):212-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11,
  author = {Sumaya Kagoya and Dev Jani and Tinali Gerald Paga},
  title = {Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {6},
  pages = {212-216},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200906.11},
  abstract = {Indubitably, for operational research journals articles are meant to entail content to do with Operations research models, theories and fields. This provides organisations and companies with best optimization solutions so as to achieve a competitive age among other benefits. This article aimed appraising the content of the ORSEA Journal articles (2011-2017) to deduce the theoretical, philosophical, methodological, and contextual aspects used in operations research. Using a matrix designed specifically for the study, content analysis was applied and utilised in analysing fifty (50) articles. 21 used theories, 14 developed and used models that emanated from theoretical frameworks and 15 articles which had neither theories nor models. 38 articles used quantitative methods, 6 qualitative approach and 6 mixed methods. Findings revealed that the theoretical contributions of the articles in the context of OR in East Africa are questionable; implying that most of the theories derived in other context can be totally adopted in East Africa which is far from the truth. In addition to the above, the over reliance on positivism and deductive approaches dominant in the ORSEA Journal articles can be complimented with more Interpretivism and inductive approaches that might generate mid-range contextual theories and models.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)
AU  - Sumaya Kagoya
AU  - Dev Jani
AU  - Tinali Gerald Paga
Y1  - 2020/11/04
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 212
EP  - 216
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
AB  - Indubitably, for operational research journals articles are meant to entail content to do with Operations research models, theories and fields. This provides organisations and companies with best optimization solutions so as to achieve a competitive age among other benefits. This article aimed appraising the content of the ORSEA Journal articles (2011-2017) to deduce the theoretical, philosophical, methodological, and contextual aspects used in operations research. Using a matrix designed specifically for the study, content analysis was applied and utilised in analysing fifty (50) articles. 21 used theories, 14 developed and used models that emanated from theoretical frameworks and 15 articles which had neither theories nor models. 38 articles used quantitative methods, 6 qualitative approach and 6 mixed methods. Findings revealed that the theoretical contributions of the articles in the context of OR in East Africa are questionable; implying that most of the theories derived in other context can be totally adopted in East Africa which is far from the truth. In addition to the above, the over reliance on positivism and deductive approaches dominant in the ORSEA Journal articles can be complimented with more Interpretivism and inductive approaches that might generate mid-range contextual theories and models.
VL  - 9
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sumaya Kagoya

Department of Applied Computing and IT, Faculty of Computing and Informatics, Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda
Dev Jani

Department of Marketing, Business School, University of Dar es Salaam, Dodoma, Tanzania
Tinali Gerald Paga

Department of General Management, Business School, University of Dar es Salaam, Dodoma, Tanzania

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sumaya Kagoya, Dev Jani, Tinali Gerald Paga. (2020). Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Social Sciences, 9(6), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sumaya Kagoya; Dev Jani; Tinali Gerald Paga. Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(6), 212-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sumaya Kagoya, Dev Jani, Tinali Gerald Paga. Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017). Soc Sci. 2020;9(6):212-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11,
  author = {Sumaya Kagoya and Dev Jani and Tinali Gerald Paga},
  title = {Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {6},
  pages = {212-216},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200906.11},
  abstract = {Indubitably, for operational research journals articles are meant to entail content to do with Operations research models, theories and fields. This provides organisations and companies with best optimization solutions so as to achieve a competitive age among other benefits. This article aimed appraising the content of the ORSEA Journal articles (2011-2017) to deduce the theoretical, philosophical, methodological, and contextual aspects used in operations research. Using a matrix designed specifically for the study, content analysis was applied and utilised in analysing fifty (50) articles. 21 used theories, 14 developed and used models that emanated from theoretical frameworks and 15 articles which had neither theories nor models. 38 articles used quantitative methods, 6 qualitative approach and 6 mixed methods. Findings revealed that the theoretical contributions of the articles in the context of OR in East Africa are questionable; implying that most of the theories derived in other context can be totally adopted in East Africa which is far from the truth. In addition to the above, the over reliance on positivism and deductive approaches dominant in the ORSEA Journal articles can be complimented with more Interpretivism and inductive approaches that might generate mid-range contextual theories and models.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Appraisal of the Theoretical, Contextual and Methodological Elements of Operation Research Society for East Africa (ORSEA) Journal Articles (2011-2017)
AU  - Sumaya Kagoya
AU  - Dev Jani
AU  - Tinali Gerald Paga
Y1  - 2020/11/04
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 212
EP  - 216
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200906.11
AB  - Indubitably, for operational research journals articles are meant to entail content to do with Operations research models, theories and fields. This provides organisations and companies with best optimization solutions so as to achieve a competitive age among other benefits. This article aimed appraising the content of the ORSEA Journal articles (2011-2017) to deduce the theoretical, philosophical, methodological, and contextual aspects used in operations research. Using a matrix designed specifically for the study, content analysis was applied and utilised in analysing fifty (50) articles. 21 used theories, 14 developed and used models that emanated from theoretical frameworks and 15 articles which had neither theories nor models. 38 articles used quantitative methods, 6 qualitative approach and 6 mixed methods. Findings revealed that the theoretical contributions of the articles in the context of OR in East Africa are questionable; implying that most of the theories derived in other context can be totally adopted in East Africa which is far from the truth. In addition to the above, the over reliance on positivism and deductive approaches dominant in the ORSEA Journal articles can be complimented with more Interpretivism and inductive approaches that might generate mid-range contextual theories and models.
VL  - 9
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download