BEM 3014 Formative Assessment

Please see main points required for the review (in red). This is not an exhaustive list, and
you all included additional valid points, but it should help you with any category you were
uncertain about.

Please write a journal article review of the following: Roux-Dufort, C., & Vidaillet, B. (2003).
The difficulties of improvising in a crisis situation-a case study. International studies of
management & organization, 33(1), 86-115.

Objectives: what does the article set out to do?

To understand the factors that hinder as well as facilitate improvisation in times of
crisis
Theory: is there an explicit theoretical framework? If not, are there important theoretical
assumptions?

Literature on improvisation, framed within research on human and group behavior and
examined through the lens of jazz and theatre metaphors of improvisation.

Concepts: what are the central concepts? Are they clearly defined?:

Concepts related to defining improvisation include: intuition, minimal structure,

bricolage, and temporal convergence. These are well defined and their origins in the
improvisation literature is cited. Concepts relating to the conditions for improvisation
include: urgency, surprise, flexibility of role system, intensification, procedural memory
and attitude of wisdom (perhaps not as precisely defined).

Argument: what is the central argument?

Improvisation can be hindered under certain conditions including but not limited to several
groups of actors involved, divergent methods and referentials, or different professional
identities

Method: what research methods are employed?

Single case; wider stakeholder perspective; in-depth interviews with 11 (lasting 2-3.5
hours) eliciting their experiences of the crisis; mainly retrospective analysis (but also diary
notes from the time of the crisis are consulted0; findings presented in the form of story
construction; chronological organization of events; analysis resulted in four research
propositions that account for the lack of improvisation.

Evidence: is evidence provided? How adequate is it?

Literature focuses mostly on conditions which favour improvisation so the evidence here is
the empirical, single-case analysis. Further empirical research will be required to test the
propositions generated here. However, the case is in-depth and the analysis is robust.

Values: are value positions clear or are they implicit?

Meaning is socially constructed through group interaction and shared meaning

construction. The emphasis on group is explicit as this is the unit of analysis and the
research is also constructed from a sensemaking perspective. The researcher values
language and story and sees reality as narratively constructed. This is evident as their
findings are organized chronologically through story construction. This means the focus is
on group (rather than individual/organizational) and on their retrospective narrative
accounts (rather than a study of their actions/practices): Link to limitations.

Literature: how does the work fit into the wider literature?

Very well positioned within the literature on improvisation where a clear gap in the
literature has been identified relating to the conditions which result in a failure to
improvise. The sensemaking and crisis literature is also cited but the researcher overall is
seeking to contribute to the improvisation literature.

Contribution: how well does the work advance our knowledge of the subject?

There is a clear contribution in investigating the conditions which facilitate and hinder
improvisation in times of crisis. The hindering conditions have hitherto received scant
attention and an in-depth single case-analysis offers insight into these conditions and
generates research propositions and an agenda for future research.

Style: how clear is the author's language/style/expression?

Well structured and organized. Clearly summarises existing literature, identifies gap,
research method, findings and analysis. The aims and contribution of the paper are set out
clearly. Perhaps, a better account of how the findings were organized and how the
propositions were generated would make for an even more robust paper.

Limitations: what parts are unclear?

Clearly the author has signaled some limitations: narrow focus on particular conditions that
hinder improvisation (based on jazz and theatre metaphor); retrospective justifications
(although some in-the-moment reflections captured); single-case (different sized unit of
analysis may generate different conclusions);

What can you say beyond what the author notes: Group as the center of improvisation;
stories rather than practices/actions the focus of attention

Directions for further research: what new questions arise based

on this current article?

Defining critical thresholds, corporate crises, larger groups, simulations.

The author lists directions for future research. What can you say beyond this: studies which
focus on different levels of analysis other than group; studies which focus on the intricacies
of practice and action during crisis; proposition testing.

Conclusion: a brief overall assessment.

Clear gap identified in improvisation literature; interesting in-depth case study which
generates insight into the conditions which can hinder improvisation (a clear contribution)
which also sets out an agenda for future research. Well-written, clearly structured.