The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain
Open accessAbstract
Considerable managerial and academic interest has made engagement a key priority in marketing and service research, spurring a rapidly increasing body of literature on this topic. Academic research initially explored customer engagement (CE) and customer engagement behavior within the firm-customer dyad. Recent developments suggest a need to broaden the conceptual domain of CE not only from the focal subject of customers/consumers to a general actor-to-actor perspective but also from the firm-customer dyad to relationships among multiple actors in service ecosystems. Hence, the purpose of this article is to bring a broadened definition to the conceptual domain of actor engagement (AE) in networks. Our theorizing process adopted a propositional conceptual approach that built on CE research and was guided by the general theoretical perspective of service-dominant logic. The critical contribution of the article lies in its systematic development of the conceptual domain of AE and the potential this development has for guiding knowledge development and cross-fertilization in various research fields, including customer, work, citizen, and business engagement. We provide a definition of AE and five fundamental propositions that embody a broader network perspective of engagement and conclude by discussing an agenda for future research that illustrates its managerial relevance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · Cited by 14,779
The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1015630930326 · Cited by 10,014
Developing buyer-seller relationships
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298705100202 · Cited by 9,139
Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 · Cited by 7,824
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670510375599 · Cited by 3,536
Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,276 · cited 4×
“CE research has commonly drawn on relationship marketing/management and S-D logic foundations, with a focus on empirically exploring and measuring engagement, its antecedents, outcomes, and dynamics (e.g., Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie 2014).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationCustomer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679200201 · Cited by 2,089
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670510375602 · Cited by 1,382
The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual Framework
Bowden, J. L.-H. (2009) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679170105 · Cited by 1,365
Cited by
Designing conceptual articles: four approaches
Jaakkola, E. (2020) · AMS Review · doi:10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0 · Cited by 2,258
“For example, Brodie et al. (2019) sought to advance engagement research (domain theory) by drawing new perspectives from service-dominant logic (method theory).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationAncillai, C., Terho, H., Cardinali, S., & Pascucci, F. (2019) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.002 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Brodie, R. J., Fehrer, J. A., Jaakkola, E., & Conduit, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Service Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-02-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-188
- ISSN
- 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7379
- OpenAlex
- W2912938464
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 52.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094670519827385
- The paper
- Brodie, R. J., Fehrer, J. A., Jaakkola, E., & Conduit, J. (2019). Actor Engagement in Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670519827385
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.