Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T12:50:25.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tackling Grand Challenges beyond Dyads and Networks: Developing a Stakeholder Systems View Using the Metaphor of Ballet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Thomas J. Roulet Open the ORCID record for Thomas J. Roulet [Opens in a new window]  and
Joel Bothello Open the ORCID record for Joel Bothello [Opens in a new window]
Thomas J. Roulet
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Joel Bothello
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tackling grand challenges requires coordination and sustained effort among multiple organizations and stakeholders. Yet research on stakeholder theory has been conceptually constrained in capturing this complexity: existing accounts tend to focus either on dyadic level firm–stakeholder ties or on stakeholder networks within which the focal organization is embedded. We suggest that addressing grand challenges requires a more generative conceptualization of organizations and their constituents as stakeholder systems. Using the metaphor of ballet and insights from dance theory, we highlight four defining dimensions of stakeholder systems (two structural and two dyadic); we proceed to offer a dynamic model of how those dimensions may interact and coevolve. Our metaphor and resulting theory of stakeholder systems are thereby well equipped to incorporate the complexity of tackling grand challenges, where many contemporary stakeholder arrangements are oriented around issues rather than firms.

Keywords

stakeholder theorysystemsdanceballetnetworks

Information

Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 573 - 603
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Business Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. 2015. Stakeholder engagement as communication design practice. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2): 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. 2012. Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88(3): 543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. 2013. Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(1): 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. 2010. International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5(3): 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adner, R. 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmadsimab, A., & Chowdhury, I. 2021. Managing tensions and divergent institutional logics in firm–NPO partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(3): 651–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. 2011. The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. 2018. Ballet and modern dance: A concise history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Book Company.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. 1999. Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10(3): 216–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P., Meyer, A., Eisenhardt, K., Carley, K., & Pettigrew, A. 1999. Introduction to the special issue: Applications of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10(3): 233–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andonova, L. B., & Levy, M. A. 2003. Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg type II partnerships. Yearbook of International Co-Operation on Environment and Development, January: 19–32.Google Scholar
Ansari, S. M., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. 2013. Constructing a climate change logic : An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons.” Organization Science, 24(4): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, M. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. 1999. Metaphysics (Sachs, Joe, Trans.). Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.Google Scholar
Ashraf, N., Ahmadsimab, A., & Pinkse, J. 2017. From animosity to affinity: The interplay of competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6): 793–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal, P., Grewatsch, S., & Sharma, G. 2021. How COVID‐19 informs business sustainability research: It’s time for a systems perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2): 602–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 794–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. 2019. Discursive framing in private and public communication by pro-nuclear corporate, political and regulatory actors following the Fukushima disaster. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 32(5): 1585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belova, O., King, I., & Sliwa, M. 2008. Introduction: Polyphony and organization studies: Mikhail Bakhtin and beyond. Organization Studies, 29(4): 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, H., Crowder, L. B., & Brooks, C. M. 2020. Organizational perspectives on sustainable ocean governance: A multi-stakeholder, meta-organization model of collective action. Marine Policy, 118: 104026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biehl, B. 2017. Dance and organization: Integrating dance theory and methods into the study of management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitektine, A., Haack, P., Bothello, J., & Mair, J. 2019. Inhabited actors: Internalizing institutions through communication and actorhood models. Journal of Management Studies, 57(4): 885–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, D. A., & Coughlan, R. 2016. Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7): 1197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. 2009. Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 447–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bothello, J., & Mehrpouya, A. 2018. Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development. Regulation and Governance, 13(2): 177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bothello, J., & Salles-Djelic, M.-L. 2018. Evolving conceptualizations of organizational environmentalism: A path generation account. Organization Studies, 39(1): 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowen, R. M., Johnson, M. F., Shevlin, T., & Shores, D. 1992. Determinants of the timing of quarterly earnings announcements. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 7(4): 395–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandstetter, G. 2014. Dis/balances: Dance and theory. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.Google Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. 2014. Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. 2016. Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2): 229–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundy, J., Vogel, R. M., & Zachary, M. A. 2018. Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39(2): 476–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. 2000. Dance theory, sociology, and aesthetics. Dance Research Journal, 32(1): 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S., Kilduff, M., & Tasselli, S. 2013. Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64: 527–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 751–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. P. 2006. Making sense of theory construction: Metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organization Studies, 27(11): 1579–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J., Höllerer, M. A., & Seidl, D. 2021. What theory is and can be: Forms of theorizing in organizational scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3). DOI: 10.1177/26317877211020328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cots, E. G. 2011. Stakeholder social capital: A new approach to stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(4): 328–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, A. 1994. Isadora Duncan’s dance theory. Dance Research Journal, 26(2): 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daudigeos, T., Roulet, T., & Valiorgue, B. 2018. How scandals act as catalysts of fringe stakeholders’ contentious actions against multinational corporations. Business and Society, 59(3): 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, C. 2015. Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bakker, F. G. A., Rasche, A., & Ponte, S. 2019. Multi-stakeholder initiatives on sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3): 343–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. 2007. Overcoming path dependency: Path generation in open systems. Theory and Society, 36(2): 161–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelic, M.-L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. 2006. Transnational governance in the making—Regulatory fields and their dynamics. In Djelic, M.-L. & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation : 1–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etchanchu, H. 2017. How institutions matter for frame amplification: Framing shale gas related to an energy transition. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1): 12051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransen, L. 2011. Why do private governance organizations not converge? A political-institutional analysis of transnational labor standards regulation. Governance, 24(2): 359–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fransen, L., & Conzelmann, T. 2015. Fragmented or cohesive transnational private regulation of sustainability standards? A comparative study. Regulation and Governance, 9(3): 259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. 2018. Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Magagement Review, 24(2): 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2016. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6): 1880–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, C., & Sobczak, A. 2012. Towards a model of corporate and social stakeholder engagement: Analyzing the relations between a French mutual bank and its members. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(2): 215–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, M. 2007. Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4): 315–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, R., Márquez, P., & Reficco, E. 2016. Configuration and development of alliance portfolios: A comparison of same-sector and cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1): 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. 1989. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43(3): 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. M. 1992. Banning chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone. International Organization, 46(01): 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. L. 1987. To dance is human: A theory of nonverbal communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. J. 2009. Moral imagination, collective action, and the achievement of moral outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1): 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2013. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1): 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. 2014. Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1256–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, A. M., Jankovic, M., Feng, W., Farel, R., Yune, J. H., & Yannou, B. 2017. Stakeholder power in industrial symbioses: A stakeholder value network approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148: 923–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. 1992. Stakeholder‐agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2): 131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. 2009. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6): 1404–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, J. 2013. Apollo’s angels: A history of ballet. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Islam, G., Zyphur, M. J., & Boje, D. 2008. Carnival and spectacle in Krewe de Vieux and the Mystic Krewe of Spermes: The mingling of organization and celebration. Organization Studies, 29(12): 1565–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. 2018. How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3): 371–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. 1972. General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4): 447–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketokivi, M., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. 2017. Reasoning by analogy and the progress of theory. Academy of Management Review, 42(4): 637–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. 2010. Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 317–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolo, K. 2015. Ode to choreography. Organizational Aesthetics, 5(1): 37.Google Scholar
Kraan, M., Hendriksen, A., van Hoof, L., van Leeuwen, J., & Jouanneau, C. 2014. How to dance? The tango of stakeholder involvement in marine governance research. Marine Policy, 50: 347–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurath, G. P. 1960. Panorama of dance ethnology. Current Anthropology, 1(3): 233–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Huili Lin, S. 2017. Systems theory. In Scott, C. R. & Lewis, L. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication: 1–18. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. B. 2008. Power, institutions and organizations. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 170–97. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levasseur, R. F. 2004. Open system theory and organizations. Futurics, 28(1/2): 79–85.Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y. 1998. Introduction—jazz improvisation as a metaphor for organization theory. Organization Science, 9(5): 539–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, J. C. 2019. Private regulatory capture via harmonization: An analysis of global retailer regulatory intermediaries. Regulation and Governance, 13(2): 157–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, D., McDade, K. K., Ogbuoji, O., Johnson, M., Dixit, S., & Yamey, G. 2020. Incentivising wealthy nations to participate in the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility (COVAX): A game theory perspective. BMJ Global Health, 5(11): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mebratu, D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18(6): 493–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. 2012. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3): 527–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelson, C., & Tosti-Kharas, J. 2020. A world changed: What post-9/11 stories tell us about the position of America, purpose of business, and meaning of work. Academy of Management Review, 45(4): 877–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. 2015. The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3): 469–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nehrt, C. 1996. Timing and intensity effects of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7): 535–47.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. 2011. Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3): 357–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okazaki, S., Plangger, K., Roulet, T., & Menéndez, H. D. 2020. Assessing stakeholder network engagement. European Journal of Marketing. DOI: 10.1108/EJM-12-2018-0842.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3): 641–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paskevska, A. 2005. Ballet beyond tradition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. 1998. Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6): 501–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, A. 2012. Global policies and local practice: Loose and tight couplings in multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4): 679–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2016. Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3): 299–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & Von Hagen, O. 2012. The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies, 33(5–6): 791–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulet, T. J. 2020. The power of being divisive: Understanding negative social evaluations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roulet, T., & Bothello, J. 2020. Why “de-growth” shouldn’t scare businesses. Harvard Business Review, February 14.Google Scholar
Roulet, T. J., & Pichler, R. 2020. Blame game theory: Scapegoating, whistleblowing and discursive struggles following accusations of organizational misconduct. Organization Theory, 1(4). DOI: 10.1177/2631787720975192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, A. 2008. Unfolding the dance of team learning: A metaphorical investigation of collective learning. Management Learning, 39(1): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 887–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffer, A. J. 2019. Fostering social capital in an international multi-stakeholder issue network. Public Relations Review, 45(2): 282–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, M. A. 2000. Decades ahead of her time: Advancing stakeholder theory through the ideas of Mary Parker Follett. Journal of Management History, 6(5): 224–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schüssler, E., Rüling, C. C., & Wittneben, B. B. 2014. On melting summits: The limitations of field-configuring events as catalysts of change in transnational climate policy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1): 140–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgourev, S. V. 2015. Brokerage as catalysis: How Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes escalated modernism. Organization Studies, 36(3): 343–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgourev, S. V. 2021. Categorical bifurcation: The Rite of Spring at the threshold of modernism. Cultural Sociology, 15(2): 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipilov, A., & Gawer, A. 2020. Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1): 92–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shymko, Y., & Roulet, T. J. 2017. When does Medici hurt Da Vinci? Mitigating the signaling effect of extraneous stakeholder relationships in the field of cultural production. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1307–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slutskaya, N., & De Cock, C. 2008. The body dances: Carnival dance and organization. Organization, 15(6): 851–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. 2016. Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 314–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasselli, S., & Caimo, A. 2019. Does it take three to dance the tango? Organizational design, triadic structures and boundary spanning across subunits. Social Networks, 59: 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. 1975. On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1(4): 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. 1950. The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 11(2872): 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. 1972. The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4): 407–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welcomer, S. A., Cochran, P. L., Rands, G., & Haggerty, M. 2003. Constructing a web. Business and Society, 42(1): 43–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werhane, P. H. 2002. Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(1/2): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werhane, P. H. 2008. Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3): 463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werhane, P. H. 2011. Globalization, mental models and decentering stakeholder approaches. In Phillips, R. (Ed.), Stakeholder theory: Impact and prospects: 111–29. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Roulet and Bothello supplementary material

Roulet and Bothello supplementary material

Download Roulet and Bothello supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.4 MB