The Transformative Value of a Service Experience

The Transformative Value of a Service Experience

Journal of Service Research 1-19 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1094670515583064 jsr.sagepub.com

Christopher P. Blocker1 and Andre´s Barrios2

Abstract The pursuit of upward social transformation through service design and practice demands rigorous thinking about what this kind of change looks like and how it comes about. To advance these two goals, this study conceptualizes transformative value, defined as a social dimension of value creation which illuminates uplifting changes among individuals and collectives in the marketplace. Conceptual development draws on structuration theory and the service-dominant logic to articulate the spheres of transformative value as well as four distinctions between habitual and transformative value. Ethnographic analysis with a nonprofit service, which focuses on mitigating the inequalities of poverty, explores how service providers can facilitate transformative value. Findings highlight the roles of holistic value propositions, an anti-structural servicescape, and communal service practices. Beyond microlevel social impact, findings also reveal the macro-level reach of transformative value by demonstrating how services can contest and transform dominant social structures and stimulate social action. Discussion highlights the implications of transformative value for human agency and ways to design services that promote well-being among vulnerable populations. Keywords transformative value, value creation, service dominant logic, social impact

It’s like a bridge bringing people together, you know? That’s what it means to me. People I had never been around with that kind of lifestyle, it gives me a chance to ‘‘bridge’’ with them. Its just open. Come as you are . . . come and see. Just because you’ve got a good life and no worries don’t mean that the next person don’t . . . You get your chance to experience what they’re going through . . . So it has affected the community. (Tony)

The bridge Tony refers to is both real and symbolic—it is the defining mark of a service which seeks to alleviate the dilemmas of inequality and deprivations of poverty. It also illustrates a driving question behind this study: How can services be a ‘‘bridge’’ for both individual and societal transformation? This theme has been taken up by the transformative service research (TSR) initiative. Through rigorous research, TSR seeks to fuel ‘‘uplifting changes and improvements in the well-being of both individuals and communities’’ (Anderson 2010, p. 9), particularly in contexts of vulnerability (Mick et al. 2012), for example, discrimination and urban poverty. Yet, to reach its potential, several fundamental questions demand conceptual and empirically based answers. First, what distinguishes everyday, routine service consumption from profoundly meaningful service consumption that is undeniably transformative? Second, how do service providers facilitate transformative experiences and outcomes that advance well-being? Finally, what roles do individuals, service communities, and broader societal groups play in cocreating transformative experiences and outcomes? A handful of studies

explore related answers to these questions and have generated useful insights (e.g., Guo et al. 2013; Ozanne and Anderson 2010; Rosenbaum and Smallwood 2011). However, conceptual development and the ability to synthesize implications across studies are in the early stages. We propose that the picture would be significantly clearer if scholars and practitioners could examine these questions through the lens of value creation and by focusing on transformative value. We define transformative value as a social dimension of value creation that generates uplifting change for greater well-being among individuals and collectives. To be clear, most value creation is not transformative. Rather, just like most experiences are ordinary not extraordinary (Abrahams 1986), most value creation in the marketplace is habitual in nature. Habitual value reflects the everyday value that organizations offer to satisfy situational and domain-specific needs in a marketspace. By way of comparison, scholars in parallel fields have developed insightful research streams by focusing on ‘‘transformative’’ constructs, for example, ‘‘transformative learning’’ (Clark 1993) and ‘‘transformational leadership’’

1 2

Department of Marketing, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Department of Marketing, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota´, Colombia

Corresponding Author: Christopher P. Blocker, Department of Marketing, Colorado State University, 1278 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015

2

Journal of Service Research

(Burns 2004), which explain changes in the nature, condition, and perspectives of people and social phenomena. In a similar way, differentiating value that is transformative can add clarity, facilitate comparison of findings, and identify novel insights (MacInnis 2011). To advance this idea, we contribute to its conceptual development in two stages—the first aided by extant theory and the second using ethnographic data. First, we derive a framework using the service-dominant logic and structuration theory to frame the nature and process of upward change within service interactions. The framework embeds transformative value in a value configuration space that spans human agents, service providers, and broader societal structures. Our second stage of conceptual development examines these spheres in action to understand the emergence of transformative value when market actors contest and alter social structures.1 These two stages are then synthesized, and we identify four fundamental distinctions that mark our definition of transformative value creation. Together, the contributions address our questions about: the nature of transformative service consumption; how providers facilitate transformative value; and the roles that individuals, communities, and societal collectives play in cocreating them. Our closing discussion highlights implications for promoting human agency and directions for transformative services theory and practice.

Transformative Value: Conceptual Development Value Creation and Service-Dominant Logic Value creation plays a vital role in marketing theory and practice (Blocker et al. 2011; Holbrook 2006), and scholars trace ideas about exchange-value and use-value back to Aristotle. Exchange value dominated the meaning of value in management discourse for most of the 20th century (Vargo and Lusch 2008). Yet, for several decades now, scholars have generated rich insights into value-in-use as well as a diverse array of value types (Karababa and Kjeldgaard 2014; Woodruff and Flint 2006). In marketing, value creation is conventionally viewed as the chief outcome of product, service, and relational benefits, which drive loyalty. While such basic concepts still hold, research reveals several shifts in the last decade spurred on by dialogue about a service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2008). First, ideas about value have migrated beyond ‘‘value drivers’’ that are believed to be embedded in goods and services during product development. Rather, a contemporary view stresses that customers always cocreate unique value within their use situations. Moreover, value is socially constructed (Penãloza and Mish 2011) and unfolds through interactions and experiences that customers synthesize using their resources and social networks (Holbrook 2006; Vargo and Lusch 2008). Furthermore, value is multifaceted and can be fruitfully examined through the lenses of human perceptions, experiences, and outcomes, as well as embodied practices that individuals

engage in to create value with providers and other consumers (Schau, Mun˜iz, and Arnould 2009). Second, research reveals a shift from viewing value as only a point-in-time determination and toward dynamic understandings of value that are shaped by history, ongoing sense-making, and anticipated value creation (Blocker et al. 2011; Helkkula, Kelleher, and Pihlstro¨m 2012). Beyond temporal dynamics, scholars are relaxing the assumption that value creation is always positively valenced. Rather, diminishment of value may occur when actors experience empty or negative engagements (Echeverri and Ska˚leń 2011). Scholars have also explored the process nature of value, such as triggers for value change or biological and social processes of valuing and devaluing objects over time (Flint 2006). Third, creating value for the firm is no longer the sole focus. The field has shifted away from a firm-centric notion and toward customer-centric and a polycentric views of value creation (Vargo 2008). The idea that ‘‘all social and economic actors are resource integrators’’ broadens the locus of value creation beyond a provider-customer dyad (Vargo and Lusch 2008, p. 7) and toward a view of service ecosystems. Thus, rather than seeing value creation as a unidirectional activity (firm to consumer), value creation operates in a multidirectional fashion as market actors cocreate value for themselves and others. Notably, not all actors reside on an equal playing field. Individuals who live in disempowered social roles may have greater need of services to facilitate value for them. Yet, this reality has been underexplored. Like many research domains, value creation studies have largely explored contexts of resource abundance. Thus, there has been far less visibility into the struggles that shape value creation in a state of consumption restriction (Blocker et al. 2013). Overall, these shifts inform the interactive and nuanced nature of value, its dynamism, and multi-actor formation in marketplace value creation. We rely on these advancements in the next section to set the stage for conceptualizing transformative value across multiple layers of analysis.

Value Configuration Space and Structuration Theory Framework overview. The notion of a ‘‘value configuration space’’ reflects an augmented scope for value creation that spans the spheres of individuals, communities, focal service providers, and broader social structures (Vargo 2008). For an organizing framework, we draw on recent models (Chandler and Vargo 2011; Edvardsson, Ska˚leń, and Tronvoll 2012; Gro¨nroos and Voima 2013) and structuration theory (Giddens 1984) to derive a theoretical value configuration space (Figure 1). Value is a central idea in marketing and, scholars draw on diverse paradigms, theories, and methods to explore new insights. For this study, structuration helps frame the processes for creating both habitual and transformative value across multilevel actors.2 Doing so also helps set the stage for the broader exploration of transformative value in TSR and transformative consumer research. To set up the framework, we first review aspects of structuration theory. After this, we describe the nature of value


Blocker and Barrios

3

Figure 1. Theoretical value configuration space.

creation across each sphere. Then, we articulate the core of the framework by differentiating habitual value creation from transformative value creation. Structuration. Among other concepts, structuration explains social reality with the interaction of structures, agents, and practices.3 Structuration proposes that social systems rely on the mutually influencing roles of structures and agents. That is, social structures ‘‘structure’’ the actions of individuals. Yet, individuals, conceived as human agents, reproduce social structures through their everyday actions and practices (Giddens 1984) and can alter those structures through their agency. Agency reflects the capacity to act independently and make free choices (Sewell 1992) and, agency is often highlighted as a fundamental issue in contexts of poverty (Sen 1999). Social structures are constituted by resources and schema, and they are observable through everyday social practices. Resources reflect entities (e.g., factories and land), and schemas (e.g., socioeconomic status) reflect historically accumulated beliefs, norms, and power that are constructed through individual action but that gradually disassociate from individuals. Social practices are shared mental and bodily routines, scripts, habits, and generally the ongoing series of ‘‘practical activities’’ (Giddens 1984), for example, cooking or industrial practices, that are performed by actors. Importantly, social practices reflect the simultaneous shaping influence of social structures as well as the influence of individual actors who ‘‘instantiate’’ them into social reality. These concepts and their interrelations can help us theorize the nature of value in different market spheres. Value in social structures. The macro-sphere of the framework (top of Figure 1) depicts how social structures propagate a

network of shared meanings or discourse about ‘‘what is valuable’’ in a value configuration space. For example, the structural resources and schema that constitute ‘‘luxury travel experiences’’ or ‘‘low-cost legal services’’ shape the ways that organizations and people participate (or are excluded) in those marketspaces and internalize ‘‘systems of taste’’ (Arsel and Bean 2013). This value discourse is diffused within actors’ social practices and both enables and constrains the design of services and service practices. For example, Schau, Mun˜iz, and Arnould (2009), identify value-creating practices that can only be understood in relation to broader social schemas, for example, using brand community to build cultural capital. Thus, the value-creating activity that actors perform is shaped by value discourse at a structural level through social practices, and it reflexively recreates this discourse through service design and practices. Value in service design and practices. The middle of the framework articulates how the two spheres of service design and practices work together to cocreate value. The left side reflects the service design sphere where organizations set forth value propositions by way of offers, the servicescape, and service delivery (Arnould 2008; Chandler and Vargo 2011). These propositions reflect marketing strategies and (from a structuration perspective) the interpretive schemas and resources being integrated into those strategies. Value propositions draw upon operand (e.g., physical) and operant (e.g., knowledge) resources that are mobilized through organizational capabilities and reflect the value that providers intend to offer (Vargo and Lusch 2008). On the right side, service practices reflect an interactive sphere between providers and their communities where


4


propositions translate into value creation beyond what the organization offers (Echeverri and Ska˚leń 2011). Scholars suggest that the ‘‘anatomy’’ of social practices includes: procedures (e.g., explicit rules), understandings (e.g., tacit cultural templates), and engagements (e.g., emotional purposes that sustain commitment; Warde 2005). Within a service practices sphere, these elements work jointly to create intersubjective value for service communities across consumption episodes. To illustrate, McColl-Kennedy et al. (2012) highlight practices such as ‘‘colearning’’ to create value in health care contexts, and Schau and her colleagues (2009) identify a set of valuecreating practices, for example, ‘‘impression management’’ in brand communities. Value for agents. Finally, the base of the framework reflects the agent sphere of value in use. Value for individuals can be understood through lenses such as perceptions, outcomes, processes, and experiences (Gummerus 2013). Each lens highlights different facets of value. Yet, they all involve the interaction of an individual’s lifeworld (e.g., experiences, situations, and goals) with the resources offered in provider value propositions and practices (Holbrook 2006; Penãloza and Mish 2011). Within service encounters, agents create value for themselves through resource integration (Gro¨nroos and Voima 2013). Here, individuals are making sense of the servicescape and using it to create desired outcomes and experiences. Beyond intrasubjective value, an agent’s actions can also impact others’ experiences when the resources of one individual integrates with others in service practices that emerge from the design (Vargo 2008). Agents can cede control to others, modify provider and peer meanings, and collaboratively synthesize resources. Thus, the joint horizon of individual’s intrasubjective value and their interactions with service design/practices shapes intersubjective value and, ultimately, value discourse at the structural level. However, an agent’s ability to cocreate value in these ways can be dramatically shaped by their portfolio of resources as well as their capabilities and degrees of freedom to deploy them. This scenario highlights the potential role of a provider to facilitate agent’s resources, capabilities, and freedoms through transformative value. To summarize, this value configuration space builds on structuration theory to highlight the idea that service design, service practices, and agents are embedded within social structures (Chandler and Vargo 2011) and that the interactive and multi-actor formation of value is shaped by this complex social reality. The framework underwrites this study’s purposes by establishing a platform for exploring transformative value as an intrasubjective and socially intersubjective phenomenon. The next section builds on this framework and further articulates the idea of transformative value creation.

The Concept of Transformative Value At the core of the framework, we identify two types of value creation—habitual and transformative value. As stated in our

introduction, we define transformative value as a social dimension of value creation that generates uplifting change for greater well-being among individuals and collectives. In contrast, habitual value reflects the everyday value that organizations offer to satisfy agents’ situational and domain-specific needs in the marketspace. It is important to note that, habitual value and transformative value can co-occur in a given service context, and habitual value sustains order and stability for ‘‘normal life’’ among consumers in the marketplace and economic growth for organizations. That said, our interest in delineating transformative value stems from the call to understand uplifting changes in the welfare of consumers and society (Mick et al. 2012), particularly in contexts of vulnerability like the setting of urban poverty we investigate (Blocker et al. 2013). We distinguish between habitual and transformative value using the logic of structuration. Specifically, the systemic influence of social structures upon everyday human thought and action speaks to the way that value discourse shapes service design, practices, and agent’s concepts of value. For example, one might reason that the fashion industry all but determines consumer choice and rebuffs the existence of real consumer agency (Rinallo 2008). Thus, the flows of habitual value creation (white arrows in Figure 1) rely on the powerful forces of social reproduction in daily life as market actors appropriate, reproduce, and integrate resources and schema that are expressed in social practices. In this way, habitual value can help explain phenomena like: A herding mentality toward a certain smartphone or why retailers enact similar policies to drive away homeless individuals. Yet, scholars have critiqued the sometimes ‘‘overly reproductive’’ framing of humans that underplays their agency and portrays them as passive appropriators that ‘‘swim with the current’’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p. 1005). In principle, one must recognize that the same practices and actions that take in and reproduce structural schemas also make possible their contestation and transformation (Sewell 1992). Transformations occur when agents become conscious of their roles in reproducing structures and elect to instead make new, imaginative choices to challenge dominant patterns. In such instances, individuals and groups move beyond an everyday, iterative orientation to life that relies heavily on past experiences and move toward an evaluative present and projective future (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). As it relates to transformative value, we can thus assert that value creation occurs in a dynamic social system where organizations and individuals not only take their cues from social structures but also have potential to learn, adapt, and make creative choices. Thus, whereas habitual value largely sustains an individual’s routine need fulfillment and reproduces prevailing value discourse, transformative value can arise as organizations and individuals contest and alter the schemas and resources that define their consumption reality and the broader social structures (depicted by gray arrows in Figure 1). In defining transformative value, it is also important to differentiate it from related ideas. For example, almost any


Blocker and Barrios

5

consumption object, for example, cosmetics, may inspire ‘‘transformation expectations’’ (Richins 2013) or ‘‘hope’’ (MacInnis 2011). However, transformative value differs by way of scope and focus. In scope, it reflects a higher order and more multifaceted construct than beliefs, expectations, or emotions. Specifically, transformative value can be manifest in various intrasubjective and intersubjective phenomena, for example, processes, experiences, and practices. In focus, transformative value emphasizes uplifting and enduring changes that arise within the market but go beyond consumer reactions within the purchase cycle. Finally, transformative value does not equate to well-being but serves as an intervening construct for advancing greater well-being. This distinction is analogous to the one made in decades of research that discriminates between value and satisfaction (e.g., Woodruff and Flint 2006) and empirically situates the former as fueling the latter. Thus, whereas TSR has advanced insights into well-being outcomes (Anderson et al. 2013), we elaborate on the nature of value creation which transforms and how this kind of value is created among market actors. Organizations might aim to create transformative value. Alternatively, it may emerge indirectly, when a service designed to create habitual value facilitates a platform for transformative value. Furthermore, as in transformation of other types, transformative value may be associated at the onset with disorienting dilemmas and crises, or it may progress through a build-up of small changes that over time generate profound, uplifting change. To summarize our first stage of conceptual development, we locate value creation within the service-dominant logic and structuration. Doing so offers conceptual scaffolding for analyzing social transformation as it unfolds for individuals, services, and society. This background also helps theorize the notions of habitual and transformative value creation. To further theorize and empirically ground transformative value creation, our second stage of conceptual development begins in the next section by describing the context of a service that works with both vulnerable and nonvulnerable people. We then analyze this service context to gain a vivid portrayal of how transformative value can emerge across the spheres in Figure 1 and reflect resource integration that contests/alters social structures.

Transformative Value: Case of Church Under the Bridge (CUB) Initiative and Homelessness Domestic Homelessness and the CUB For over 30 years, the CUB, which is a nonprofit religious service located in a midsize town in the United States, has served vulnerable as well as nonvulnerable populations. Our extended engagement with this organization alerted us to upward social changes occurring within service consumption. This sparked our curiosity and an iterative process of tacking back and forth between our data and the literature that informs social transformation. We then further investigated this focal context for two

key reasons that enhance our ability to theorize transformative value creation. Case rationale. First, we expected to find evidence of habitual and transformative value creation. Attending a religious service is a common weekly activity. There are over 300,000 religious service organizations in North America alone, and increasingly, they integrate commercial aspects related to leisure and personal interest, such as bookstores, coffee shops, gyms, and social media (Lindner 2012). At the same time, the dialogue around understanding one’s past, present, and future interfaces with identity and existential beliefs, which can be linked with transformation (Barrios, Piacentini, and Salciuviene 2012). Second, the CUB offers a unique context to explore both micro-level and macro-level transformation. In particular, its mission revolves around promoting well-being through physical, emotional, spiritual, and relational benefits. Furthermore, the CUB’s 20-year history makes it possible to collect community impressions from distant observers. The diverse CUB community includes a high proportion of stigmatized individuals, which gives visibility into the role of resource restrictions as well as societal dialogue on poverty. Thus, the history and unique embeddedness of a service like the CUB in broader social structures helps us to probe transformative value creation both within and beyond the servicescape. Background of CUB. Marketing studies have analyzed consumption restrictions within homelessness (e.g., Hill and Stamey 1990). Beyond loss of shelter, homelessness is a ‘‘pathway’’ where individuals lose control over their daily lives and the affiliations that link them to social systems (Clapham 2003). Various public and nonprofit organizations have emerged to support people who are homeless—a population estimated to include over 600,000 individuals in the United States (Department of Housing and Urban Development 2013). In particular, nonprofit organizations have shown to be effective in promoting civil engagement toward individuals in this situation (Hill 2002). The CUB is one of these initiatives. The CUB initiative began one Sunday in 1992 when two employees, working for a faith-based nonprofit, met a group of individuals in a homeless situation who were huddled together and praying under a bridge. In an effort to learn their story, the couple invited them to breakfast where conversation revolved around the hardships of their living and spiritual topics. The group enjoyed talking, and the individuals in a homeless situation asked if they could continue meeting weekly to get to know each other, read spiritual books, and sing songs under the bridge. In time, participation grew from a few into dozens. The group also started to attract students from a nearby university as well as middle and upper-income individuals, many of whom had either no previous involvement with religious services or felt they did not fit in such settings. In 1998, the group formed a nonprofit church that welcomes people from all backgrounds. Other than its identity as a Christian church, the group strives for diversity and avoids distinctions created by ethnicity, income, age, or other sociocultural


6


attributes. The CUB has attracted hundreds of homeless and nonhomeless individuals from the region and has received the support from different marketplace actors including corporations, charities, universities, and governmental offices.

Methodology This study began as part of a broader ethnographic project exploring consumption experiences in a homeless pathway.4 During this phase (begun 18 months prior), the researchers volunteered for a nonprofit that serves individuals in homeless pathways to provide tangible help as well as develop empathy, rapport, and understanding. A consistent theme that emerged during conversation was the role of the CUB in participants’ lives. Many wore a CUB branded hoodie and shared how they had experienced positive transformation during their involvement there. These conversations directed our attention to the idea of transformation in services as an aspect of value creation. During subsequent, focused stages of inquiry, we spent multiple hours each week at the CUB for 2 months and began a process of progressive contextualization with observation and conversations. Since value is socially constructed and unfolds through interactions, we focused on eliciting narratives that individuals’ construct while interacting with the CUB. In addition to informal conversations with 50 participants, we conducted depth interviews lasting 30 minutes to 90 minutes, with 29 people who represent different kinds of actors in the value configuration space. We also examined local newspaper articles referencing homelessness or the CUB, given their usefulness for tapping into public consensus and collective meaning (Humphreys 2010). In sum, we interacted with over 80 individuals and conducted deeper analysis of 30 (Table 1). Ethnographic field notes, researcher diaries, and interviews became sources of data that were analyzed using phenomenological procedures (Thompson et al. 1989). Incorporating multilevel perspectives helped produce a holistic account, and our tacking back and forth between the data and literature progressed into organizing our findings across the value creation spheres (Figure 1). Subsequently, we presented findings to individuals at the CUB to ensure that the themes and accounts resonated with their experience and for a collaborative learning benefit.

Transformative Value: Empirical Development Where would Jerry be if he didn’t have the church under the bridge? In jail? Dead? Don’t know. He probably wouldn’t be the smiling face that’s so happy to see everybody, that everybody knows, and that no one’s afraid of . . . that’s the transformation, that’s both sides of the transformation–Jerry being changed and the people around him being changed too. (Michael)

Jerry is an African American man in his 60s who deals with a mental disability and chronic homelessness. Every week, he jubilantly marches up to the makeshift CUB stage with a

Table 1. Informants. Name

Attends Demographics* CUB Participant Role and Situation

John Trent Sonia Isabel Kaelyn Caylin Jack Maddox Caitlin Gabriel Pam Mace Carlos Thomas Barbara Jade Edgar Chris Jade Malcolm Kaleb Rita Abbey Tara Charles Jackie Michael Elena Mike Vicky

50, M, W 20, M, AF 40, F, W 30, F, H 50, F, W 30, F, W 30, M, W 60, M, W 50, F, W 40, M, W 20, F, AF 30, M, AF 40, M, W 30, M, AF 50, F, W 30, F, H 20, M, W 20, M, W 30, F, AF 30, M, AF 20, M, AF 20, F, H 40, F, W 40, F, W 40, M, W 30, F, W 40, M, W 40, F, H 30, M, H 40, F, W

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No

CUB Staff Member CUB Staff Member CUB Staff Member CUB Staff Member CUB Staff Member Non-homeless- Manager Non-homeless - Social Worker Non-homeless -Retired Non-homeless- Housewife Non-homeless- Manager Non-homeless - Student In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway In homeless pathway Community: University Administration Community: Mayor Office-Housing Community: Chief of Police Force Community: Member of Local Charity Community: Member of Local Charity Community: Newspaper Editor Community: Manager of Local Business Community: Manager of Local Business

*Age in deciles, M ¼ male; F ¼ female; AF ¼ African American; H ¼ Hispanic; W ¼ Caucasian.

broken toy guitar to sing unabashedly about God’s love for him. Everyone knows that Jerry will sing off key. Yet, his presence is celebrated. His song is seen as a gift to learn from. John said, ‘‘they realize here’s a man, been made fun of his whole life, and I watch them cry as they listen because they have never been in a place that gave people [like Jerry] value.’’ To further develop our conceptual ideas, we probe them in this context to unpack how scenes like this reflect the transformative value of a service experience. We organize our findings around the spheres of value creation (Figure 1). Findings reveal how CUB service design and practices facilitate transformative value creation by way of boundary-crossing, communitas, liminal experiences, and spiritual flow. Service impact also extends to the broader city community. Specifically, we find the CUB service community creatively reconfiguring resources and schema in ways that challenge the dominant value discourse through: generating awareness, legitimizing needs, resolving ideological tensions, and propagating empathy. Thus, analyses reveal how the CUB service contests and alters the spheres of value configuration and illuminates transformative value creation.

Service Design and Value Propositions Holistic value propositions. The CUB service design promotes human flourishing through spiritual endeavor. The core offer


Blocker and Barrios

7

is a weekly service that blends band-led singing, stories from people overcoming challenges by relying on faith and community, a talk on a spiritual topic, and connections to weekly activities. If not for the way these service elements are configured to contest dominant social structures, one could argue that this design generally reproduces habitual value in this service domain. However, the CUB is multicultural by mission, gathering people within and across socioeconomic lines ‘‘no matter what color or creed,’’ and aims to ‘‘create a middle-ground for the rich and poor to understand each other.’’ For those who are stigmatized in various ways, the CUB is seen as the only place in the city to gain access to a spiritual service and feel safe to be who you are. Beyond opening up access for many who are stigmatized, the CUB staff believes in ‘‘holistic service.’’ Thus, the service design includes value propositions that meet physical needs (e.g., clothing), relational needs (e.g., recreation in the park), emotional needs (e.g., artistic activities), and community service (e.g., local mission trips), to name a few. Beyond these, the holistic approach develops individuals’ personal capabilities and potential for flourishing by connecting them to the social service ecosystem for programs like supportive housing, job training, and live-in addiction recovery. Holistic value propositions also contest the compartmentalization of life and instead invite members to create transformative value through therapeutic meanings about one’s body, mind, spirit, and relationships. The CUB service largely functions through volunteers and calls on people in a homeless pathway to take leadership roles. This democratized design contests the dominant practice for religious services, since leadership in these settings is often determined using badges of professional/educational achievement and social status. In contrast, the CUB’s democratized design conveys symbolic meaning for ‘‘who is valuable’’ and offers transformative value for undoing the experience of inequality and stigmatization. Anti-structural servicescape. One might expect an interpersonalcentric service to set up an elaborate servicescape to facilitate conversations (Bitner 1992). In contrast, the CUB servicescape is plain and transient. It is built and torn down in a barren public space within a couple hours once a week underneath a noisy highway bridge (Figure 2). The ambient noise from vehicles above, along with unpredictable weather, make the CUB servicescape unique. Interestingly, CUB staff has long had free access to a traditional church building. Yet, it contests this dominant practice and opts to stay put because staff ‘‘see the bridge as the backyard’’ for individuals who are homeless and fear many would be uncomfortable inside those walls. As it is, the space allows for a range of behaviors deemed socially unacceptable in ‘‘traditional’’ settings, for example, smoking, bringing a dog or shopping cart, coming with a hangover, or expressions associated with mental disability. Drawing on this nontraditional space, the CUB servicescape offers a platform to ‘‘come as you are’’ to meet with others under the bridge and reflect on life. In the founder’s

words, ‘‘it is a place where we are just people in a church instead of the homeless or the non-homeless.’’ Tony, who has been at the CUB for 4 years while living in a homeless pathway, spoke of how this space helps transform individuals’ perspectives to overcome the fear of ‘‘unknown homeless’’ or ‘‘unknown well-off’’ strangers. The church gives the homeless a chance to open up and to give and to share . . . [For the non-homeless], sometimes people are afraid of what they don’t know. But the church give em’ a chance, gives the homeless and the ‘‘well-off’’ a chance to know each other and see, ya know, don’t be afraid of what you don’t understand.

As analyses progressed, it became clear that the CUB servicescape typifies an anti-structural space where people can be liberated from normative social structures (Turner 1974). Participants voiced how the CUB differed dramatically from their previous experiences in what most termed ‘‘traditional’’ religious environments. ‘‘Traditional’’ experiences were set in a variety of contexts but shared an emphasis on formality, clear roles, and propriety that reflect a more structured servicescape. The CUB, in stark contrast, epitomizes informality as staff member, Kaelyn said, We just blew the structure up, so we said okay there’s no structure . . . no committees, there’s no nothing. What church has that? [We wanted] the freedom from that.

Another unique strategy the CUB uses to nurture an antistructural servicescape is adopting the troll from the ‘‘Three Billy Goats’’ fable as a community mascot and brand identity. John explained how wearing t-shirts/hoodies that say ‘‘I’m a troll’’ (Figure 2b) turns the stigma of being a misfit into a point of community pride: Trolls live under bridges, seemed appropriate [for us], not just because of their location . . . We are all trolls, it’s who we are as a group . . . so we got our warts and ugliness, and people are scared of the old troll under the bridge. By society’s standards, we are misfits. We don’t have buildings. We don’t have pretty people. We have these people who are rejected in culture, but when you really get to know the trolls, with all the warts and the ugly side of their past experiences, there really is a genuineness and a lot to learn from them . . . So we are all trolls. Nobody gets excluded. You can even be rich and be a troll. So . . . it’s taking a stigma that was there and redeeming it as it’s a good thing to be a troll not a bad thing.

The transformative value of this trope rests on the idea that ‘‘trolls are ordinary people’’ from all walks of life that are ‘‘made valuable by God.’’ This communal strategy draws on spiritual ideology to both contest and alter the schema in a dominant social structure that reproduces class hierarchy and stigmatizes individuals who are homeless. In sum, the CUB contests the dominant value discourse by granting ‘‘market’’ access to people who are excluded from


8


Figure 2. CUB Servicescape.

spiritual services. It sets forth transformative value propositions that are mobilized using holistic service offerings. The cluster of resources nurtured in the anti-structural servicescape provide opportunities to integrate positive selfimages and capabilities. Being freed from normative structures (e.g., class hierarchies) in the CUB servicescape promotes an open space for reflective thinking about life and energy to pursue progressive journeys of social confidence and self-worth.

Service Practices and Intersubjective Value Among the service practices that emerge at the intersection of the CUB’s service design and communities, we identified two that facilitate transformative value creation for homeless and nonhomeless alike—boundary-crossing and communitas.

Boundary crossing. The diversity at the CUB is striking. A new person might end up eating with or sitting and singing next to someone: who has been homeless for months (or years), a person who is independently wealthy, a social worker, a business owner, or a university student. Boundary crossing reflects a CUB service practice where individuals are coming into contact and making assessments of people who are very different from them. As they go, they are (re)constructing personal meanings about the markers that form class hierarchies, their own place in life, and what the overall service experience means for them. Other than explicit rules like ‘‘no begging or fighting,’’ there are no expectations to do or be anything. The tacit understanding is that everyone under the bridge has equal value. Anyone can be a ‘‘troll.’’ People approach boundary crossing with varying comfort. Some have more caution (e.g., new visitors) about intermingling with individuals who appear to be homeless.


Blocker and Barrios

9

Other participants fretted about ‘‘germophobia’’ when shaking hands or hugging others. Yet others seemed quite relaxed with anyone they came in contact with. Although, boundary crossing occurs before, during, and after the service, we observed ways that seating arrangements reflected both boundary crossing and boundary maintenance. In particular, proximity to the stage revealed increasing concentrations of boundary crossing, and staff discussed how some people over time would gradually move closer to the stage. For nonhomeless individuals, the transformative aspects of boundary crossing unfolded along a trajectory of curiosity, unravelling assumptions, and then engagement. Michael, who is from a high income strata, came to realize ‘‘everything I ever heard [about homelessness] was wrong’’ and speculated about others like him: Their initial connection is wanting to help. People who are very affluent that attend weekly, they started by giving money. What keeps them [coming] is they recognize these individuals aren’t any different. Just because socioeconomically we might be different or dress differently, the reality is that God loves them just like he loves me and this is a place where I feel God in a way that I’ve never [felt], because when you’re there it is so different . . . and its not a sorrowful thing. It’s a joyful thing, like these people have all come together. And there’s a transformation, a relaxing that you don’t have to be something you’re not, you can connect with God and be who you are . . . It just totally changes you.

For Michael, the transformative value created through the boundary-crossing practice has reconfigured his schema about life, the way he views himself, and views others. Similarly, Pam, a university student, feels changed in the ‘‘way she views people’’: To think of people in a holistic way instead of just one part . . . like homelessness or even affluent, you know? We can be friends even though we’re so different. That’s how it changed my life. It’s hard to go back, hard to remain the same. Churches talk about helping the homeless and, they do, but it’s more like you go there, help them and go away, instead of becoming friends, living life with them, which is a whole other kind of dynamic. Definitely has changed me.

Across these experiences, there are irreversible changes of perspective that occur through critical reflection and imagination, whereby individuals in a homeless pathway are progressively de-objectified and alternate paradigms of empathy emerge. There is an initial ‘‘seeing of differences’’ that transforms into ‘‘seeing oneself and others’’ in a new, unified way. For those living in homeless pathways, boundary crossing can be scary. People can feel shame in the presence of affluent others. In these cases, CUB boundary-crossing practices like affirming eye contact, sitting and sharing a meal, shaking hands, and small talk, contest typical social barriers and help to (re)build dignity. Kaleb says this is a time where ‘‘I’m there, I’m going to shake their hand, I’m all . . . hug them,

I’ll laugh with them, it’s the connection point, and it’s very important to me.’’ Divergence and negative engagements. Alongside manifestations of transformative value, we observed a subgroup of individuals who come to the CUB on terms that diverge from the intended value propositions or who experience negative engagements. For example, some individuals create tension when they ignore the rule against panhandling and come to ask others for money. In other cases, strife arises when ‘‘something is being given away for free’’ and some perceive it as unfair, or others complain about those ‘‘people [who] are kind of in a ‘gimme’ mode.’’ Such instances appropriate and reproduce motivations associated with dominant structures of mistrust and social judgment. Also, although infrequent, an occasional threat stems from interactions outside the CUB such as physical assaults or other forms of abuse between participants. The egalitarian policy for leadership has also created tension in the past when a community leader ‘‘relapsed’’ into risky behavior and other leaders had to determine whether that person should continue leading, despite potential for undermining collective influence. Across these cases, one can observe occasions where a misuse of resources and negative engagements can diminish value (Echeverri and Ska˚leń 2011). What is more, these behaviors and expressions are facilitated by an antistructural servicescape that avoids the use of hierarchical coordination or strong lines of expectations. In other words, a service designed with less structure, even ones focusing on well-being (Hill 2002), can be fraught with difficulties and create undesirable consequences. Co-constructing communitas. The CUB’s ‘‘come as you are’’ ethos takes its cues from the servicescape as well as the mantra to welcome everyone no matter their background. The meanings that people form during the service experience create opportunities to bond without regard for social standing or the fear of being stigmatized. Mun˜iz and O’Guinn’s (2001) three characteristics of a community—shared consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility—can be used to describe the communitas that emerges here. For participants, the ‘‘anti-performance’’ atmosphere is a shared consciousness that exists at the CUB. For example, Kaleb felt that the CUB creates an open playing field: I don’t feel uncomfortable, like if I walked into [traditional church nearby] and I weren’t dressed right I’d feel out of, I can’t think of the word, out of place. But right there [CUB] its just like, I can talk to a [university] student, I can talk to someone in church who’s a homeless person, I can talk to the pastor. I can talk to just about anybody now . . . It’s really a homey feel.

For Kaleb, the freedom to side-step ‘‘right’’ dress, feel he is ‘‘in’’ place, and ability to talk to ‘‘anybody’’ reflect a shared consciousness at the CUB. The CUB’s rituals and traditions include singing, communion, as well as special events, gatherings, and trips during the


10


year. Kaelyn spoke about how rituals and traditions are community-led by asking people to lead things that reflect their ‘‘joy’’: I love the variety show, and so I love planning and putting it on every year. We get everybody in it and just a great time. John loves organizing the softball game . . . and the chili cook off, and he thinks those are the absolute best things. That’s not my thing. But everybody loves it . . . like Thomas does the sound. My gosh, that man volunteers every Sunday, and is there early and leaves late. So, it’s just ‘‘find something you love to do and share it!’’ Its [still] messy, its like oh we’ve got no children’s program today, you know, so kids stay with your parents.

Despite the organic nature of rituals and traditions, the spirit of ‘‘this is messy,’’ ‘‘let’s have fun,’’ and not pretend to ‘‘have it together’’ undergirds their role in constructing communitas. Finally, the sense of moral responsibility for others is a marker of communitas. For example, Jade said ‘‘they treat everyone as if they’re family no matter what color you are, no matter what you do.’’ Likewise, Candace said: I would give anything to anyone [at CUB] that was in need or desperation. There’s been so many points in my own life when I didn’t have, and I needed very badly . . . at every point there’s been someone [at CUB] walking in the rain with nowhere to go, nothing to eat, and someone’s driving by, it’s a member of church under the bridge and, you know, they meet those needs I didn’t have, and it’s wonderful.

Whereas the dominant expression of the CUB community was positive, we also observed some tensions. One aspirational CUB goal is fostering bona fide friendships across socioeconomic strata that are marked by shared learning and giving. Yet, sometimes the lines between a friendly gift (e.g., buying someone groceries) and fostering ‘‘unhealthy’’ dependencies can be thin. Also, some individuals who have experienced dramatic transformations as part of the CUB community (e.g., from a life of addiction to sobriety) can find it difficult to come, at least during a transition period. In these cases, individuals sometimes ‘‘leave for a while and come back’’ because ‘‘it is too close’’ to their previous life. In sum, we find that boundary crossing and communitas practices in the CUB are platforms for creative exchange of resources and schema across the array of individuals who are homeless, affluent, and everywhere in between. These service practices mobilize ways of ‘‘understanding, saying, and doing things’’ with others (Schau, Mun˜iz, and Arnould 2009, p. 31) that create intersubjective transformative value through triggering critical reflection, new global meanings in life, and progress in the areas of identity and community. They are also a conduit for emotional benefits (e.g., support to cope with hardship) as well as capabilities, such as new perspectives and skills about what it means to truly help others in need through sustained engagement and concern.

Human Agents and Intrasubjective Value The CUB service design and practices facilitated opportunities for individuals to create transformative value for themselves. We highlight two areas, liminal experiences and spiritual flow, where perceptions and experiences were marked by uplifting meanings, critical reflection, and progressive patterns of identity and capability development. Liminal experience. Participant’s narratives reveal how being involved at the CUB inspires liminal experiences, wherein an individual’s social world can be temporarily dissolved (Maclaran and Brown 2005). During the service, individuals feel they can break from their regular lives and social positions. This freedom helps them pause, evaluate life, and re-shape their identity based upon the matrices of spirituality, theology, and relationships. For Mark, who has been homeless and attending the CUB for years, he thinks about his CUB experiences with anticipation of restoration and change: Things are going to change . . . maybe it’s your appearance or your state of mind, physical state . . . I feel like I’m a changed. I’m better than when I first started going, maybe not physically, but spiritually and mentally I’m better off. I can encourage and be encouraged . . . Anytime you come, you get uplifted. You start bringing problems, it might be a problem solved. That’s what church under the bridge offers you. It gives you your dignity back. Some people lose that. It gives you honesty and trust . . . I feel like when [people] leave, they’ll be uplifted spiritually, mentally, and physically.

Transformative value for Mark at the CUB involves moments of transcendence, and he leaves ‘‘changed,’’ ‘‘uplifted,’’ and with ‘‘problems solved.’’ By seeing himself through the lens of a ‘‘child of God’’ who is loved and valued, Mark has regained the dignity he felt he lost. Spiritual flow. Evidence of ‘‘spiritual flow’’ also emerged. ‘‘Flow’’ is a state involving total engagement in an activity (e.g., work and hobby) and ceasing to be aware of oneself; when the activity is over, a person feels transformed by the experience (Csikszentmihalyi 2009). Flow can also occur in spiritual experiences (Monson 2012). In the CUB, participants describe immersion in the spirituality of the service. Flow was observed in worship time where, despite distractions, people engage in embodied worship. Cailyn said, I start worshipping literally before I ever arrive . . . it’s when I start worshipping. And so I’m already looking for God . . . And the music, I allow to draw me even closer, and at that point I want to come to the throne of God as much under a bridge as if I was in the grandest cathedral in Heaven . . . and I love that [CUB leader] lets whatever happen in the service happen. It doesn’t have to go like this, and you don’t have to act like this . . . It is so superior in the worship experience than the traditional church.


Blocker and Barrios

11

At the CUB, people like Cailyn can have a cathartic experience filled with deep existential meaning. Others described how they come away with meanings like a clean conscience, peace, and confidence, as well as resources for personal and professional growth:

Raising social awareness. Community stakeholders revealed how the CUB has had a progressive and transformative impact on the city. In its early history, however, the CUB created major tension with the business community, university, and city officials.

It gives me a time off from the things that’s not so good in my life. One day just to have peace and confidence. It has changed me, and I look forward to it every week. (Thomas) I’m a bit better with my patience. I think its all spiritual change. I’m not so depressed, and its given me an opportunity to network with people. If I am looking for a job, I can network . . . you have certain people that may have work to be done, so you can go there and talk to them, and if they’re hiring they may give you a job. (Malcolm)

The business community around them hated them [homeless] . . . police would come down and arrest them . . . I went to a couple of meetings, and the anger, like they’d say ‘‘we need to get the fire department to go in there and spray water on them. We need to put lights under the bridge, so they can’t sleep.’’ Very punitive mindset . . . So the community didn’t like [the CUB]. (John)

Here we see, individuals using the CUB experience to create not only valuable hedonic outcomes of dignity and peace but also capabilities associated with self-efficacy where individuals feel transformed to cope with the challenges of their hardships (e.g., patience and skills to job search). The duality of liminal experiences (breaking free from past-current realities) and spiritual flow experiences (approaching a desirable reality) helps individuals use their time at the CUB to re-shape their worldviews and project new life strategies. The clear exceptions to the illustrative cases mentioned previously are individuals that, for a variety of reasons, limit their engagement in the CUB service to transactional-oriented participation. For example, it is common for a handful of individuals to come for the free meal and depart quickly, avoiding interactions. Over time, some of these individuals gradually engage and meaningfully participate. But some never do and simply pass through without close encounters. This lack of engagement highlights the role of individual initiative to cocreate transformative value for oneself in services (Guo et al. 2013). As Sonia said, not ‘‘everyone changes their life . . . and it is frustrating and sad’’ to see someone stay in destructive circumstances. Still, she said ‘‘at least everyone has a place [CUB] they can feel accepted.’’ In sum, participants cocreate transformative value at the CUB through resource integration—mediated by liminal experiences involving spiritual flow. These practices help individuals contest and alter their existing worldviews and craft life strategies that promote peace of mind as well as capabilities to cope with difficult situations.

Social Structures and Value Discourse Finally, we explored the potential for transformative value beyond the servicescape. Findings reveal how the CUB creates transformative value in the city through altering the dominant discourse and raising awareness, legitimizing the needs of homelessness, reconciling ideological tensions, and propagating empathetic cultural models that motivate social action.

Strife over the CUB fueled debate about the location of a proposed homeless shelter which was ‘‘fought tooth and nail’’ by politicians and businesses. Over time, however, the CUB staff worked with the stakeholders and engaged in public dialogue (in civic meetings and newspaper editorials) to assuage the anger and concern. Then, people began to realize there were very few services for the homeless, and it was a problem. So we began to move into caring for them. And, the newspaper would write the stories. They began to see that there was a different approach. (John)

Over 15 years later, individuals in city government, local businesses, police force, nonprofits, and the university stress that the CUB has raised the city’s awareness of those who are in a homeless pathway. For example, after speaking of the conflict in the 1990s, the city’s chief of police said ‘‘that church, it has become part of the community now. And I think that has helped, that the church with the homeless been accepted [by the city].’’ Similarly, an editor of the city’s bipartisan newspaper commented: [CUB] is one of the most unique aspects about our town. [It] is a unique Sunday gathering of everyone from the homeless to some well-heeled, well-intentioned visitors . . . not above worshipping with the most vulnerable in society. [It has been] a dynamic force in raising this town’s social conscience.

Others throughout the broader community expressed similar sentiments: The beautiful thing about the CUB is that it brought awareness to this community that you had people living on the street. No one else had done that. (Member of mayor office) It makes us more aware of the situation that guys and some women are in . . . there are other issues [besides business] that are going on that we have to be aware of (business manager).

Thus, transformative value creation at a societal level can inspire critical reflection that contests the idea that homelessness is the ‘‘city’s job’’ and instead fosters an ascendancy of awareness and social conscience.


12


Despite this movement, there are still some stakeholders who do not like the awareness—fearing the city will be a magnet for homelessness and upset commerce. Yet, the most visible responses have been ones that avoided divisive rhetoric. For example, a few years ago, the city formed a steering committee with representation from CUB staff, businesses, and individuals who are homeless to initiate a 10-year poverty reduction plan. More recently, a businessperson voiced his concern that a deluge of panhandling was affecting business. The outcome was a community campaign to educate givers that ‘‘panhandling is not homelessness.’’ These initiatives reflect future-oriented thinking and a positive trajectory of action, which contest fatalistic views that poverty is intractable. Resolving ideological tensions. For outsiders, the boundary crossing at the CUB is symbolic. It contests the structural norms that reinforce stigmas and discrimination. The highly visible location (bridge at a major thoroughfare) allows onlookers to observe the service. Furthermore, special occasions (e.g., CUB anniversaries or annual city ‘‘Walk for the Homeless’’) draw larger crowds of several hundred people and stakeholders such as officials from the mayor’s office, former U.S. senators, and university presidents, which creates added media exposure. Additionally, it is common for casual visitors to attend for the purpose of finding a safe environment to learn about the difficulties of homelessness. These community interactions help contest and alter a dominant but flawed ideology that asserts that ‘‘homeless people’’ are in their situation because of a deficit of work ethic and moral values (Small, Harding, and Lamont 2010). By highlighting the hardships of people in a homeless pathway and facilitating their community ‘‘voice,’’ the CUB creates an uplifting value discourse that contests the discourse of ‘‘deservingness’’ and harmful myths of homelessness. Thus, in contrast to political battles of the past, stakeholders now believe: The city and the chamber of commerce are actually coming alongside [the CUB] to bring in more resources to end homelessness. A lot of that has to do with the church under the bridge because it has put a human face on them . . . It’s hard to look at somebody who is pursuing God and go ‘‘that’s just some addict we need to run out of town.’’ (Member of local nonprofit)

Similarly, these important views of ‘‘others’’ and modes of thinking about ‘‘our future’’ have changed the dominant discourse about community responsibility: They have tirelessly and selflessly worked to rid our town of poverty. They’ve improved how we view those of lesser means. And they’ve successfully promoted this message on a larger scale . . . They’ve focused on problem-solving and rallying others. They’ve impressed upon us that poverty is an apolitical problem that requires all our attention for the sake of our neighborhoods and our future. (Editor, local newspaper)

Empathetic cultural models. Finally, the CUB has helped alter the cultural models people in the city use to think about homelessness. Cultural models reflect the shared cognitive resources that people use to navigate the world. When people see an individual who is homeless, they draw upon cultural models to shape how they should interact (or avoid them) and make sense of that person’s situation. A prevailing script for viewing someone who is homeless in the United States might include a range of meanings that include fear, disgust, and anger (Hamilton et al. 2014). Labels like ‘‘vagrant,’’ ‘‘vagabond,’’ ‘‘beggar,’’ ‘‘street person,’’ as well as ‘‘homeless person’’ reproduce these meanings and objectify individuals who are living in a homeless condition. In contrast, Michael said, [CUB] has made homeless people less scary to the community . . . It puts a real face on people that are homeless . . . they’re people, they’re not just some vagrant I should be afraid of . . . What you haven’t seen in this community is what you’ve seen in some communities which is a legalist crack down on vagrancy and trespassing to try to run them out.

Thus, the CUB ‘‘puts a real face’’ on people who are homeless by way of its unique service design and practices which contest dominant meanings and inspire critical reflection. In the process, what gets propagated is an empathetic cultural model of the homeless pathway—one that looks beyond appearances to the fact that ‘‘everyone has a story.’’ One of the most striking illustrations of the social impact is evidence that the CUB has stimulated urban revitalization. Specifically, at least six households with CUB members who are ‘‘social justice-minded people’’ have moved into an impoverished neighborhood with the aims of building relationships, caring for neighbors, and revitalizing their street. These individuals are seen as ‘‘innovators’’ for a movement, and, notably, have inspired several dozen more individuals to move into the same neighborhood over the last 20 years. From this evidence, we find ways that services are capable of facilitating a social dimension of value at a structural level through creating transformative value with community stakeholders outside the servicescape. Furthermore, social structures and practices are being altered through knowledge of what occurs at the CUB, public discourse around it, and the social action by members who have been exposed to it.

Transformative Value: Synthesis In view of these findings, we now synthesize insights into transformative value by returning to the questions posed in our introduction as well as discussing implications for human agency and ways that services can promote well-being for vulnerable populations.

Form and Flow of Transformative Value Creation At the outset, we ask what is the nature of transformative value creation, and how do providers facilitate it for individuals,


Blocker and Barrios

13

communities, and societal collectives? We use theory to derive a framework which articulates the nature of upward change in service interactions and the concepts of habitual and transformative value. Structuration helps conceptualize the flows of transformative value when market actors contest and alter resources that define their consumption reality, the service community, as well as broader social structures (Figure 1). Upon this conceptual landscape, we unpack vivid evidence of ways that transformative value can be facilitated. Analyses in the CUB context uncover aspects of service design and practices that help individuals reflect on where they think they are going, where they want to go, and how to get there. Yet, not everyone experiences transformative value as we find evidence of some barriers. For this community, we find that service practices offer platforms for creative exchange of resources to facilitate intersubjective value. At a societal level, findings reveal how services can facilitate the ascendancy of social consciousness and inspire social action. Thus, we demonstrate that services have the latent capacity to promote well-being on a broader scale (Anderson and Ostrom 2010). Analysis and iterative review of literature called our attention to four distinctions that differentiate transformative from habitual value creation evaluative-projective orientations, global meanings, eudaimonic outcomes, and virtuous trajectories. First, transformative value creation is associated with evaluative and projective orientations of thought and action (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). Evaluative orientations prompt critical reflection of present situations in ways that create distance from past understandings of value and bring awareness of new possibilities. Projective orientations prompt imaginative ideas toward future value which hold potential for advancing well-being. In contrast, habitual value reflects a routinized orientation, where service engagements reflect predispositions rooted in dominant value discourse. To illustrate, in the CUB, evaluative orientations were stimulated by liminal experiences in the anti-structural servicecape, whereby individuals were able to ‘‘hit the pause button’’ and break free from normal life. Projective orientations were fueled by holistic value propositions wherein individuals re-shaped their worldviews away from unhealthy views of the self and toward positive images. Second, transformative value creation involves global meanings (vs. situational meanings) that alter one’s views of the world, the self, and the self in the world (Park 2010). Global meanings are not constructed very often. But when they are— they stimulate profound enduring shifts. Compared to surface changes, global meanings linked with transformative value facilitate deep, structural shifts in thought, feeling, and action. They alter human relationships and expand new possibilities that lead to greater flourishing. As an example, the CUB service design makes it possible to learn about homelessness and poverty up close through relational interaction versus though social distance and statistics. Here, the global meanings constructed inspire dramatic realizations we heard such as ‘‘we can be friends even though we’re so different . . . it changed my life.’’ Third, whereas hedonic outcomes with habitual value can arise from everyday purchases, hedonic outcomes created

through transformative value might be linked with global meaning such as psychological well-being (Martin and Hill 2012). What differentiates transformative value creation however is eudaimonic outcomes and experiences. Eudaimonia captures human flourishing for reaching one’s potential in life (Ryff 1989) and capabilities that lead to greater freedoms (Sen 1999). Eudaimonia arising from transformative value might include: market access for an excluded person, marketplace literacy, or decreasing inequality (Anderson et al. 2013). Within the CUB, individuals experienced eudaimonic outcomes through sharing resources across socioeconomic strata and within the social service ecosystem that, for example, helped people secure sustainable health care and absorb perspectives to secure employment. Finally, transformative value follows a virtuous trajectory typified by irreversible progress. As in the butterfly metaphor, an uplifting change occurs and it is hard to imagine living under the previous state. Whereas, habitual value follows cyclical trajectories along the lack-fulfillment sequences which address commonly sought-after market needs, the virtuous trajectories of transformative value might reflect progressive changes in one’s capabilities and/or narrative identity (McAdams 1997; Sen 1999). Within the CUB, we find middle- and upper-class individuals following virtuous trajectories that involve overcoming ‘‘fear of the stranger’’ and constructing new paradigms for social action. This trajectory was also evident at a societal level in the ascendancy of public consciousness and care for vulnerable people. We summarize this synthesis for the nature and facilitation of transformative value using Tables 2 and 3. The tables demonstrate the intersections of service design and service practices with empirical evidence of transformative value creation at the micro level (Table 2, agent sphere) and macro level (Table 3, social structure sphere). The tables also highlight the dimensions (e.g., virtuous trajectory) and logic for how transformative value flows across them, that is, resources and schema being contested and altered to create transformative value.

Transformative Value and Agency in the Context of Vulnerability Our conceptual framework and analyses also illuminate the role of services for energizing human agency, that is, the capacity to act and exert control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed (Sewell 1992). Agency is a type of eudaimonic outcome in life (Bauer, McAdams, and Pals 2008), and, thus, one path whereby transformative value translates into greater well-being (Anderson et al. 2013). We observed three ways that transformative value promotes agency in contexts of vulnerability and resource restriction. First, the anti-structural servicescape we studied points to ways that ceding control of physical and symbolic meanings to individuals promotes a form of celebratory agency (Kozinets et al. 2004). Research details how individuals can break free from market-determined interests and negotiate


14


Boundary crossing Psychological security to be with dissimilar others Mitigating ‘‘fear of the stranger’’ via relationships Sharing resources/schema across socioeconomic strata Constructing communitas Altering worldviews of friendship and self-identity Sharing vulnerable stories for relief and progress Promoting shared responsibility for others

Resource Integration to Facilitate Transformative Value

Panel B: Service practices sphere—intersubjective shared value

Holistic value propositions Re-shaping worldviews away from unhealthy views of self Therapeutic ideas for coping and flourishing in hardship Connecting participants to social service ecosystem Communal strategies (troll brand) for identity reformation Anti-structural servicescape Liminal experiences and space for role transcendance Granting access to an excluded/vulnerable population


Panel A: Service design sphere—value propositions

Table 2. Transformative Value Creation in the Micro-level Social Structure Sphere.

Institutional segregation by socioeconomic status Transactional models of social action Class-based barriers to social support Social judgments and reticence toward intimacy Guarding personal failures, keeping social distance Modes of isolation and apathy toward others

Virtuous trajectory Virtuous trajectory Eudaimonic outcomes Global meanings Virtuous trajectory Eudaimonic outcomes

Structural Resources Being Contested and Altered

Disempowered roles in poverty Geographic barriers, norms for physical appearance

Evaluative projective Global meanings

Illustrative Dimensions

Social and cultural stigmas in poverty Scripts of resignation to overlapping life burdens Fragmented paucity of resources in homelessness Self-worth based upon economic and social capital


Evaluative-projective Global meanings Eudaimonic outcomes Evaluative projective



15

Boundary crossing Engaging in civic dialogue to mitigate fears Stimulating ‘‘voice’’ via cross-class networks Inspiring ideological-based urban renewal Constructing communitas Building a community reputation of respect


Panel B: Service practices sphere—intersubjective shared value

Holistic value propositions Raising public consciousness, altering homeless ‘‘face’’ Cultivating legitimacy as a community institution Democratized service design Visitor-friendly design for learning about poverty Engaging local-national groups to participate Anti-structural servicescape Awareness via unusual/central location and events Sustaining city consent for bridge location


Panel A: Service design sphere—value propositions

Geographical barriers that isolate exposure to poverty Sociocultural barriers that isolate exposure to poverty

Virtuous trajectory Global meanings

Traditional stigmas about poverty hold merit Impoverished people need advocates to speak for them Urban decline is a city (not personal) responsibility Cultural assumptions of mischief or harm

Virtuous trajectory Eudaimonic Eudaimonic Virtuous trajectory


Ideas of poverty learned via statistics, social distance Traditional views of leading social/religious organizations

Global meanings Global meanings


Ideology of homelessness based on values and morality Homelessness as a fringe issue for the city, special groups


Virtuous trajectory Virtuous trajectory


Table 3. Transformative Value Creation in the Macro-level Social Structure Sphere.

16


meaning, power, and creative choice in contexts such as branded festivals or retail spectacles (Kozinets et al. 2004). Yet, the servicescape’s role for vulnerable people has been undertheorized. Here, we observe how the transformative value created in the CUB’s democratized design energizes individual’s freedom to contest dominant structures and form their own meanings, identities, and practices. Such freedom is vital because people are seeking different forms of ‘‘escape’’ from diverse hardships. This insight is consistent with findings from a disaster recovery context which reveal how the ‘‘reclamation of power’’ can be undermined if market entities ‘‘prescribe’’ roles for vulnerable individuals (Baker, Hunt, and Rittenberg 2007, p. 18). Thus, we find that an antistructural servicescape offers greater potential for selfexpression and empowerment than a carefully coordinated one that advocates a scripted plan for social transformation. Next, whereas an anti-structural servicescape facilitates an ‘‘escape from’’ a harsh reality, we find that transformative value creation through liminal experiences and flow helps cultivate chimerical agency that fuels a ‘‘movement toward’’ a desirable reality. Chimerical agency draws on the threads of reality and fantasy to sustain hope (St. James, Handelman, and Taylor 2011). In our case, we find individuals approaching a greater realm of possibility as they are caught up in experiences that help them reorient their past, present, and future selves by pondering their existence and relationship with the divine. These elements foster a projective capacity and life strategies that fuel forward progress. For individuals in homeless pathways, the transformative value cocreated through liminal experiences and spiritual flow helps them transpose the negatively charged schema of poverty into mental models filled with dignity, confidence, and self-worth. Finally, we find that societal-level transformative value can cultivate moral agency. Moral agency involves refraining from inhumane behavior as well as the proactive responsibility to ‘‘do good’’ (Bandura 2002). It also reflects a society’s capacity to resist classifying social roles and broaden its sphere of concern (MacIntyre 1999). Within the CUB, we found evidence from community stakeholders that a city’s moral agency can be positively impacted by a service over time. In this case, the tributaries for impact were maintaining a compelling public ‘‘voice’’ about the unmet needs of vulnerable individuals, partnering with others in a nonpartisan manner, and inviting people to experience the servicescape, to name a few. Yet, from a structuration standpoint, societal transformative value was approached through altering the broader community’s schema about poverty, ‘‘changing the face’’ of ‘‘homeless people,’’ and offering a model for how social action can make a difference.

Transformative Value Design and Practice Creating value for stakeholders, whether they be citizens, consumers, employees, or others is a fundamental basis for organizational health and sustainability. What we propose here is that service providers—whether traditional for-profit services or services with an explicit social mission—can think more

deeply about the kind of value that facilitates uplifting social change if they look through the lens of transformative value creation. Beyond the potential relevance of service elements we uncover, for example, holistic value propositions or fostering an inclusive community, we propose that service providers should engage in two activities that we believe help underwrite transformative value creation. First, organizations need a deep-seated awareness that they are ‘‘part of a collective enterprise’’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p. 993) which reproduces and is capable of transforming social structures. Far beyond ethical business practices, organizations should cultivate a sophisticated understanding of the social structures and institutional arrangements that impact well-being. This means looking past uniform solutions by uncovering the diverse pathways for what upward ‘‘transformation’’ means to various communities. Understanding like this can be developed with community stakeholders and is accelerated through methods like community action research (Ozanne and Anderson 2010). Insight from such engagement can uncover solutions to local problems, legitimize an organization’s voice in the political domain, as well as provide input for innovating conventional marketing processes of segmentation, value proposition development, and platforms for value creation. Finally, like other forms of value (Vargo and Lusch 2008), transformative value is always cocreated and inherently relational. Yet, we anticipate that facilitating evaluative-projective orientations, global meanings, eudaimonic outcomes, and virtuous trajectories demands a meaningfully higher dedication to stakeholder relationships. In particular, we suspect that organizations aiming to create transformative value will need to take risks and advocate for a ‘‘tribe’’ in the public domain. Such relationships will be fostered through authenticity, transparency, and organizational-stakeholder identification.

Summary Promoting well-being through services research is a worthy endeavor—but a tall order. We contribute by developing transformative value as a social dimension of value creation that reflects uplifting change in the marketplace. We ground this construct in a multilevel framework that theorizes a logic of transformation whereby services can act as a ‘‘bridge’’ for upward change in micro and macro spheres. Transformative value creation has potential to provide insight as well as stimulate TSR and practice. Our conceptual development and synthesis are initial steps. We encourage others to refine these ideas and explore transformative value creation in a variety of domains, using germane theories that can enhance its usefulness for promoting social transformation. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge the study’s participants for their willingness to share their personal stories of both struggle and transformation. We also want to thank Jimmy Dorrell, the staff at Mission Waco–Mission World, and the Church Under the Bridge for


Blocker and Barrios

17

their vision, courage, and support of this research. We appreciate the assistance of the University Research Committee Award from Baylor University. Finally, we would like to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive critiques as well as Mark B. Houston for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes 1. The contexts of homelessness and inequality we examine provide a vivid platform to examine issues of vulnerability and theory germane to transformative service research and consumption in poverty. That said, rather than unpacking the full empirics of the case, in this study, we narrow our focus on developing insights into transformative value. 2. The framework assumes that value creation spheres extend to broader social and economic networks, for example, friends/family at the micro level, other providers at the service-level, and a constellation of institutions at the macro level (Arnould, Price, and Malshe 2006), which are not shown for the sake of clarity. 3. Structuration aims to resolve the social sciences dilemma of giving primacy to either deterministic or phenomenological views of social reality and human action. In lieu of a full description, this article uses key concepts to explore transformative value creation. For a full review, see proponents (Giddens 1984), critiques (Archer 1982), developments (Stones 2005), and elaborations in marketing (Edvardsson, Ska˚leń, and Tronvoll 2012). We also note that structuration represents only one paradigm for understanding transformative value; other theory lenses can undoubtedly generate useful insights (MacInnis 2011). 4. Scholars offer helpful guidelines for fieldwork with vulnerable participants (e.g., Hill and Stamey 1990). We took care to guard participants’ mental and emotional safety, confidentiality, and anonymity.

References Abrahams, Roger (1986), ‘‘Ordinary and Extraordinary Experience,’’ in The Anthropology of Experience, Victor Turner and Edward Bruner, eds. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 45-72. Anderson, Laurel (2010), ‘‘Improving Well-Being Through Transformative Service,’’ in ‘‘Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service,’’ by Amy L. Ostrom, Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, Kevin A. Burkhard, Michael Goul, Vicki Smith-Daniels, Haluk Demirkan and Elliot Rabinovich in Journal of Service Research, 13, (1), 4-36. Anderson, Laurel and Amy Ostrom (2010), ‘‘Services as Social Structures: Consumer Collectives and Transformative Services Research,’’ in Advances in Consumer Research. Darren Dahl, Gita

Johar and Stijnvan Osselaer, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. 24-27. Anderson, Laurel, Amy L. Ostrom, Canan Corus, Raymond P. Fisk, Andrew S. Gallan, Mario Giraldo, Martin Mende, Mark Mulder, Steven W. Rayburn, Mark S. Rosenbaum, Kunio Shirahada, and Jerome D. Williams (2013), ‘‘Transformative Service Research: An Agenda for the Future,’’ Journal of Business Research, 66 (8), 1203-1210. Archer, M. S. (1982), ‘‘Morphogeneis versus Structuration: On Combining Structure and Action,’’ British Journal of Sociology, 33 (4), 455-483. Arnould, Eric (2008), ‘‘Service-dominant Logic and Resource Theory,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 21-24. Arnould, Eric, Linda Price, and Avinash Malshe (2006), ‘‘Toward a Cultural Resource-Based Theory of the Customer,’’ in The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, Roberts Lusch and Stephen Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 208-223. Arsel, Zeynep and Jonathan Bean (2013), ‘‘Taste Regimes and Market-Mediated Practice,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 899-917. Baker, Stacey, David Hunt, and Terri Rittenburg (2007), ‘‘Consumer Vulnerability as a Shared Experience,’’ Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26 (1), 6-19. Bandura, Albert (2002), ‘‘Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context,’’ Applied Psychology, 51 (2), 269-290. Barrios, Andre´s, Maria Piacentini, and Laura Salciuviene (2012), ‘‘‘Your Life When You’ve Got Everything is Different’: Forced Transformations and Consumption Practices,’’ in Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 14, Russell W. Belk, Søren Askegaard and Linda Scott, eds. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 129-149. Bauer, Jack J., Dan P. McAdams, and Jennifer L. Pals (2008), ‘‘Narrative Identity and Eudaimonic Well-Being,’’ Journal of Happiness Studies, 9 (1), 81-104. Blocker, Christopher P., Daniel J. Flint, Matthew B. Myers, and Stanley F. Slater (2011) ‘‘The Role of Proactive Customer Orientation for Creating Customer Value in Global Markets,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), 216-233. Blocker, Christopher P., Julie A. Ruth, Srinivas Sridharan, Colin Beckwith, Ahmet Ekici, Martina Goudie-Hutton, Jose´ Rosa, Bige´ Saatcioglu, Carlos Trujillo, Debabrata Talukdar, and Rohit Varman (2013) ‘‘Understanding Poverty and Promoting Poverty Alleviation through Transformative Consumer Research,’’ Journal of Business Research 66 (8), 1195-1202. Bitner Mary, Jo (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees,’’ Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 57-57. Burns, James (2004), Transforming Leadership. New York: Grove Press. Chandler, Jennifer D. and Stephen L. Vargo (2011) ‘‘Contextualization and Value-in-context: How Context Frames Exchange,’’ Marketing Theory, 11 (1), 35-49. Clapham, David (2003), ‘‘Pathways Approaches to Homelessness Research,’’ Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13 (2), 119-127.


18


Clark, M. Carolyn (1993), ‘‘Transformational Learning,’’ New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1993 (57), 47-56. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2009), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2013), The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Washington: Author. Echeverri, Per and Per Ska˚leń (2011), ‘‘Co-creation and Codestruction: A Practice-theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation,’’ Marketing Theory, 11 (3), 351-373. Edvardsson, Bo, Per Ska˚leń, and Ba˚rd Tronvoll (2012), ‘‘Service Systems as a Foundation for Resource Integration and Value Co-Creation,’’ in Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 9, Stephen Vargo and Robert Lush, eds. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 79-126. Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische (1998), ‘‘What is Agency?’’ American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962-1023. Flint, Daniel (2006) ‘‘Innovation, Symbolic Interaction and Customer Valuing: Thoughts Stemming from a Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing,’’ Marketing Theory, 6 (3), 349-362. Giddens, Anthony (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkley: University of California Press. Gro¨nroos, Christian and Païvi Voima (2013), ‘‘Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-creation,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (2), 133-150. Gummerus, Johanna (2013) ‘‘Value Creation Processes and Value Outcomes in Marketing Theory Strangers or Siblings?’’ Marketing Theory, 13 (1), 19-46. Guo, L., E. J. Arnould, T. W. Gruen, and C. Tang (2013), ‘‘Socializing to Co-Produce: Pathways to Consumers’ Financial Well-Being,’’ Journal of Service Research, 16 (4), 549-563. Hamilton, Kathy, Maria G. Piacentini, Emma Banister, Andre´s Barrios, Christopher P. Blocker, Catherine A. Coleman, Ahmet Ekici, He´le`ne Gorge, Martina Hutton, Francoise Passerard, and Bige Saatcioglu (2014), ‘‘Poverty in Consumer Culture: Towards a Transformative Social Representation,’’ Journal of Marketing Management, forthcoming. Helkkula, Anu, Carol Kelleher, and Minna Pihlstro¨m (2012), ‘‘Characterizing Value as an Experience,’’ Journal of Service Research, 15 (1), 59-75. Hill, Ronald (2002), ‘‘Service Provision through Public-Private Partnerships: An Ethnography of Service Delivery to Homeless Teenagers,’’ Journal of Service Research, 4 (May), 278-289. Hill, Ronald and Mark Stamey M, (1990), ‘‘The Homeless in America: An Examination of Possessions and Consumption Behaviors,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 303-321. Holbrook, Morris B (2006), ‘‘Rosepekiceciveci Versus CCV,’’ in The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing. Lusch and Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, 208-223. Humphreys, Ashlee (2010), ‘‘Semiotics Structure and the Legitimation of Consumption Practices: The case of Casino Gambling,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 490-510. Karababa, Eminegu¨l and Dannie Kjeldgaard (2014), ‘‘Value in Marketing: Toward Sociocultural Perspectives,’’ Marketing Theory, 14 (1), 119-127.

Kozinets, Robert, John Sherry, Diana Storm, Adam Duhachek, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Bene´t DeBerry-Spence (2004), ‘‘Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 658-672. Lindner, Eileen (2012), Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2012. Nashville: Abingdon Press. MacIntyre, Alasdair (1999), ‘‘Social Structures and their Threats to Moral Agency,’’ Philosophy, 74 (3), 311-329. Maclaran, Pauline and Stephen Brown (2005) ‘‘The Center Can Not Hold: Consuming the Utopian Marketplace,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 311-323. MacInnis, Deborah (2011), ‘‘A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing,’’ Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 136-174. Martin, Kelly D. and Ronald P. Hill (2012) ‘‘Life Satisfaction, SelfDetermination, and Consumption Adequacy at the Bottom of the Pyramid,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (6), 1155-1168. McAdams, D. (1997), The Stories We Live by: Personal Myths and Making of the Self. New York: Guilford Press. McColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Stephen L. Vargo, Tracey S. Dagger, Jillian C. Sweeney, and Yasmin van Kasteren (2012), ‘‘Health Care Customer Value Co-creation Practice Styles,’’ Journal of Service Research, 15 (4), 370-389. Mick, D., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C., and Julie Ozanne (2012), ‘‘Preface,’’ in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being, David Mick, Simone Pettigrew, Cornelia Pechmann and Julie Ozanne, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, xv-xviii. Monson, Christian (2012), ‘‘Spiritual Flow: The Influence of Religious Experience on Psychological Well-being,’’ dissertation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana. Mun˜iz, A. and Thomas O’Guinn (2001), ‘‘Brand Community,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412-432. Ozanne, Julie L., and Laurel Anderson (2010), ‘‘Community Action Research,’’ Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29 (1), 123-137. Park, Crystal (2010), ‘‘Making Sense of the Meaning Literature: An Integrative Review of Meaning Making and Its Effects on Adjustment to Stressful Life Events,’’ Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 257-301. Penãloza, Lisa and Jenny Mish (2011), ‘‘The Nature and Processes of Market Co-Creation in Triple Bottom Line Firms: Leveraging Insights from Consumer Culture Theory and Service Dominant Logic,’’ Marketing Theory, 11 (1), 9-34. Richins, Marsha L (2013), ‘‘When Wanting Is Better Than Having: Materialism, Transformation Expectations, and Product-Evoked Emotions in the Purchase Process,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (1), 1-18. Rinallo, D. (2008), ‘‘Fashion and Consumer Agency, Revisited,’’ European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 305-310. Rosenbaum, Mark and Jillian Smallwood, (2011), ‘‘Cancer Resource Centres: Transformational Services and Restorative Servicescapes,’’ Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (1314), 1404-1425. Ryff, Carol (1989), ‘‘Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-being,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (6), 1069-1081.


Blocker and Barrios

19

Schau, Hope, Albert Muniz, and Eric Arnould (2009), ‘‘How Brand Community Practices Create Value,’’ Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 30-51. Sen, Amartya K. (1999), Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Sewell, William (1992), ‘‘A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation,’’ American Journal of Sociology, 98 (1), 1-29. Small, Mario L., David J. Harding, and Miche`le Lamont (2010), ‘‘Reconsidering Culture and Poverty,’’ The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629 (1), 6-27. St. James, Yannik Jay Handelman, and Shirley Taylor (2011), ‘‘Magical Thinking and Consumer Coping,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (4), 632-649. Stones, Rob (2005), Structuration Theory. New Work: Palgrave. Thompson, Craig, William Locander, and Howard Pollio (1989), ‘‘Putting Consumer Experience Back into Consumer Research: The Philosophy and Method of Existencial-Phenomenology,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 133-146. Turner, Victor (1974), ‘‘Liminal to Liminoid, in Play, Flow, and Ritual: An Essay in Comparative Symbology,’’ Rice University Studies, 60 (3), 53-92. Vargo, Stephen L (2008), ‘‘Customer Integration and Value Creation Paradigmatic Traps and Perspectives,’’ Journal of Service Research, 11 (2), 211-215. Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2008) ‘‘Service-dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,’’ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1-10. Warde, Alan (2005), ‘‘Consumption and Theories of Practice,’’ Journal of Consumer Culture, 5 (2), 131-153.

Woodruff, R. and D. Flint (2006), ‘‘Marketing’s Service-Dominant Logic and Customer Value,’’ in Service-dominant Logic of Marketing, Lusch and Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 183-195.

Author Biographies Christopher P. Blocker ([email protected]) received his PhD at the University of Tennessee and is an assistant professor in the College of Business at the Colorado State University. His research focuses on understanding value creation within marketplace relationships. In addition to business and consumer relationships, his research explores value creation in contexts of global and domestic poverty, subsistence marketplaces, and social enterprise. He has published articles in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, among others, and he serves on the advisory board for Transformative Consumer Research. Andre´s Barrios ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of marketing at the Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota´, Colombia. His research focuses on marketing and consumer behavior in contexts of poverty. He has developed studies about poverty from different research perspectives such Transformative Consumer Research, Consumer Culture Theory, and Subsistence Marketplaces. His work has been published in the Journal of Business Research, Research in Consumer Behavior, Advances in Consumer Research, and the Transformative Consumer Research 2012 Book.
