Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain

Abstract

Considerable managerial and academic interest has made engagement a key priority in marketing and service research, spurring a rapidly increasing body of literature on this topic. Academic research initially explored customer engagement (CE) and customer engagement behavior within the firm-customer dyad. Recent developments suggest a need to broaden the conceptual domain of CE not only from the focal subject of customers/consumers to a general actor-to-actor perspective but also from the firm-customer dyad to relationships among multiple actors in service ecosystems. Hence, the purpose of this article is to bring a broadened definition to the conceptual domain of actor engagement (AE) in networks. Our theorizing process adopted a propositional conceptual approach that built on CE research and was guided by the general theoretical perspective of service-dominant logic. The critical contribution of the article lies in its systematic development of the conceptual domain of AE and the potential this development has for guiding knowledge development and cross-fertilization in various research fields, including customer, work, citizen, and business engagement. We provide a definition of AE and five fundamental propositions that embody a broader network perspective of engagement and conclude by discussing an agenda for future research that illustrates its managerial relevance.

Designing conceptual articles: four approaches

“…A method theory, on the other hand, is "a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s) of the domain theory at hand" (Lukka andVinnari 2014, p. 1309). For example, Brodie et al (2019) sought to advance engagement research (domain theory) by drawing new perspectives from service-dominant logic (method theory). The distinction is relative rather than absolute; whether a particular theory is domain or method theory depends on its role in the study in question (Lukka and Vinnari 2014).…”

“…Another option is to use an established theory to explore new aspects of the domain theory (Yadav 2010). As one example of this type of design, Brodie et al (2019) argued for the practical and theoretical importance of expanding the scope of engagement research in two ways: from a focus on consumers to a broad range of actors, and from dyadic firm-customer relationships to networks. As well as justifying why a particular extension or change of focus is needed, a theory adaptation paper must also show that the selected method theory is the best available option.…”

“…As well as justifying why a particular extension or change of focus is needed, a theory adaptation paper must also show that the selected method theory is the best available option. For example, Brodie et al (2019) explained that they employed service-dominant logic to broaden the conceptual scope of engagement research because it offered a lens for understanding actor-to-actor interactions in networks. Similarly, Hillebrand et al (2015) used multiplicity theory to revise existing perspectives on stakeholder marketing by viewing stakeholder networks as continuous rather than discrete.…”

Examining the Antecedents of Brand Engagement of Tourists Based on the Theory of Value Co-Creation

“…At present, the idea of value co-creation has become a research hotspot in the field of marketing, which has reshaped the value chain and helped enterprises or destinations to gain competitive advantages [3,4] by attracting customers to participate in personalized product design and to share their experiences [5,6]. Hence, the study of engagement behavior, the external manifestation of the idea of value co-creation, has become a research hotspot, which includes employee engagement, customer (tourist) engagement, actor engagement, and peer engagement [7][8][9][10]. In the field of tourism research, many studies verified the importance of engagement behavior of tourists [11].…”

Market shaping dynamics: interplay of actor engagement and institutional work

“…"Zooming out" beyond a micro-level reveals the broader institutional structures that govern engagement (Alexander et al, 2018;Brodie et al, 2019;Kleinaltenkamp et al, 2019).…”