Computational Complexity of Strong Admissibility for Abstract Dialectical Frameworks

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as a formalism for modeling and evaluating argumentation allowing general logical satisfaction conditions. Different criteria used to settle the acceptance of arguments arecalled semantics. Semantics of ADFs have so far mainly been defined based on the concept of admissibility. Recently, the notion of strong admissibility has been introduced for ADFs. In the current work we study the computational complexityof the following reasoning tasks under strong admissibility semantics. We address 1. the credulous/skeptical decision problem; 2. the verification problem; 3. the strong justification problem; and 4. the problem of finding a smallest witness of strong justification of a queried argument

From Knightian uncertainty to real‐structuredness: Further opening the judgment black box

Research Summary: Entrepreneurial judgment remains a concept that resembles a black box. This article attempts to further open that black box by developing a dimensionalization of types of judgment. To achieve this, it joins recent efforts to explicitly link entrepreneurship to Simonian themes by integrating the notion of decision problem structures into the judgment-based approach (JBA) to entrepreneurship. This article proposes a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to judgment in the face of decision problems we label “realstructured.” Extending the JBA comes with several important implications: It uncovers additional entrepreneurial knowledge problems, provides new insights for both economic organization and judgment communicability, and informs research on entrepreneurial success and failure. It also sheds new light on the controversy over the relationship between effectuation and judgment. Managerial Summary: When taking decisions, entrepreneurs cannot know how the future will pan out. Those decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty and only time will tell whether they prove astute or otherwise. The uncertainty of the future leads entrepreneurs to exercise judgment based on their individual beliefs and to act accordingly. The components of that entrepreneurial judgment remain rather underexplored. The purpose of this article is to dig deeper into, and thereby improve, the understanding of entrepreneurial judgment. The main result of this article is a four-part dimensionalization of judgment, covering entrepreneurial (sub-)judgments on the effects incurred by action, the appraisal of action alternatives, the goals underlying action, and resolving the decision problem

An investigation of the centrality of competing institutional logics for social enterprises.

Social enterprises have recently been recognized as organizations located in the field where two competing institutional logics co-exist preeminently. My dissertation attempts to examine the conditions under which the centrality of competing institutional logics, referring to the degree to which two competing institutional logics are both important to organizational functioning, is higher or lower in social enterprises. Using hand-collected data from the survey of 190 social enterprises in South Korea, this dissertation not only presents a validated and reliable measure for the centrality of competing logics, but also identifies the factors associated with variation in a social enterprise’s centrality of competing logics. Building on the perspective of heterogeneity in intra-stakeholder group, the Study 1 reveals that the heterogeneity within stakeholders can play a role in shaping the degree of centrality of competing logics. Specifically, ethical investors within investor stakeholders and cross-workers within employee stakeholder may enhance the centrality of competing logics. Drawing on imprinting perspective, Study 2 shows that there is the curvilinear effect of social entrepreneurs’ non-profit experience on the centrality of competing logics. Social entrepreneurs’ non-profit experience has a positive influence on the centrality of competing logics until reaching a certain point, beyond which that point is likely to be negative. Moreover, the effect of social entrepreneurs’ non-profit experience on the centrality of competing logics is less profound in the social enterprises with a highly ambivalent founder. This dissertation contributes to connect distinct research areas together, which are: (1) social entrepreneurship, (2) institutional logics, (3) stakeholder theory, and (4) imprinting perspective