See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276991936

The Transformative Value of a Service Experience

Article  in  Journal of Service Research · May 2015

DOI: 10.1177/1094670515583064

CITATIONS READS

39 556

2 authors:

Christopher Phillips Blocker Andres Barrios

Colorado State University Los Andes University (Colombia)
26 PUBLICATIONS   803 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transformative Consumer Research Scholarship for Latin America View project

Sustainability in subsistence marketplaces View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Phillips Blocker on 16 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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

Christopher P. Blocker1 and Andrés 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 transforma-
tive 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 micro-
level 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 dilem-
mas 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), par-
ticularly 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 con-
sumption from profoundly meaningful service consumption
that is undeniably transformative? Second, how do service pro-
viders 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 cre-
ation 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 organi-
zations 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
Department of Marketing, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
2
Department of Marketing, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
Corresponding Author:
Christopher P. Blocker, Department of Marketing, Colorado State University,
1278 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Email: chris.blocker@colostate.edu

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 devel-
opment 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 pro-
viders, and broader societal structures. Our second stage of
conceptual development examines these spheres in action to
understand the emergence of transformative value when mar-
ket actors contest and alter social structures.1 These two stages
are then synthesized, and we identify four fundamental distinc-
tions 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 prac-
tice (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 manage-
ment 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 rela-
tional benefits, which drive loyalty. While such basic con-
cepts 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 driv-
ers’’ 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
(Peñaloza 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 exam-
ined through the lenses of human perceptions, experiences, and
outcomes, as well as embodied practices that individuals
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
engage in to create value with providers and other consumers
(Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009).
Second, research reveals a shift from viewing value as only
a point-in-time determination and toward dynamic understand-
ings of value that are shaped by history, ongoing sense-making,
and anticipated value creation (Blocker et al. 2011; Helkkula,
Kelleher, and Pihlström 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 engage-
ments (Echeverri and Skålén 2011). Scholars have also
explored the process nature of value, such as triggers for value
change or biological and social processes of valuing and deva-
luing 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 cre-
ation (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 multidirec-
tional 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 con-
sumption 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 transfor-
mative 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 frame-
work, we draw on recent models (Chandler and Vargo 2011;
Edvardsson, Skålén, and Tronvoll 2012; Grönroos and Voima
2013) and structuration theory (Giddens 1984) to derive a theo-
retical value configuration space (Figure 1). Value is a central
idea in marketing and, scholars draw on diverse paradigms, the-
ories, and methods to explore new insights. For this study, struc-
turation 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 struc-
turation theory. After this, we describe the nature of value
Blocker and Barrios
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 prac-
tices.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, indi-
viduals, 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 every-
day 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 disas-
sociate 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
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
3
network of shared meanings or discourse about ‘‘what is valu-
able’’ in a value configuration space. For example, the struc-
tural 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, Muñiz,
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 prac-
tices, and it reflexively recreates this discourse through ser-
vice design and practices.
Value in service design and practices. The middle of the frame-
work 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 orga-
nizational 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 Journal of Service Research
propositions translate into value creation beyond what the orga-
nization offers (Echeverri and Skålén 2011). Scholars suggest
that the ‘‘anatomy’’ of social practices includes: procedures
(e.g., explicit rules), understandings (e.g., tacit cultural tem-
plates), 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 illus-
trate, 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 value-
creating 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, pro-
cesses, and experiences (Gummerus 2013). Each lens high-
lights 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; Peñaloza and
Mish 2011). Within service encounters, agents create value for
themselves through resource integration (Grönroos 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 individ-
ual 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 struc-
tures (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 articu-
lates 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
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
introduction, we define transformative value as a social dimen-
sion of value creation that generates uplifting change for
greater well-being among individuals and collectives. In con-
trast, habitual value reflects the everyday value that organiza-
tions 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 eco-
nomic growth for organizations. That said, our interest in deli-
neating 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 influ-
ence 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 cre-
ation (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 repro-
ductive’’ framing of humans that underplays their agency and
portrays them as passive appropriators that ‘‘swim with the cur-
rent’’ (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 con-
testation and transformation (Sewell 1992). Transformations
occur when agents become conscious of their roles in reprodu-
cing structures and elect to instead make new, imaginative
choices to challenge dominant patterns. In such instances, indi-
viduals and groups move beyond an everyday, iterative orien-
tation 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 organi-
zations 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 prevail-
ing value discourse, transformative value can arise as organiza-
tions 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 dif-
ferentiate it from related ideas. For example, almost any
Blocker and Barrios
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 emo-
tions. Specifically, transformative value can be manifest in var-
ious intrasubjective and intersubjective phenomena, for
example, processes, experiences, and practices. In focus, trans-
formative 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 out-
comes (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 analyz-
ing 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 sec-
ond stage of conceptual development begins in the next section
by describing the context of a service that works with both vul-
nerable 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 inte-
gration 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 ser-
vice 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 transfor-
mation. We then further investigated this focal context for two
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
5
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 increas-
ingly, 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 physi-
cal, emotional, spiritual, and relational benefits. Furthermore,
the CUB’s 20-year history makes it possible to collect commu-
nity impressions from distant observers. The diverse CUB
community includes a high proportion of stigmatized individu-
als, 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 consump-
tion 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 (Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development 2013). In particular,
nonprofit organizations have shown to be effective in promot-
ing 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 individ-
uals, 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 peo-
ple 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 Journal of Service Research

attributes. The CUB has attracted hundreds of homeless and Table 1. Informants.
nonhomeless individuals from the region and has received the
Attends
support from different marketplace actors including corpora- Name Demographics* CUB Participant Role and Situation
tions, charities, universities, and governmental offices.
John 50, M, W Yes CUB Staff Member
Trent 20, M, AF No CUB Staff Member
Methodology Sonia 40, F, W Yes CUB Staff Member
Isabel 30, F, H Yes CUB Staff Member
This study began as part of a broader ethnographic project Kaelyn 50, F, W Yes CUB Staff Member
exploring consumption experiences in a homeless pathway.4 Dur- Caylin 30, F, W Yes Non-homeless- Manager
ing this phase (begun 18 months prior), the researchers volun- Jack 30, M, W Yes Non-homeless - Social Worker
Maddox 60, M, W Yes Non-homeless -Retired
teered for a nonprofit that serves individuals in homeless Caitlin 50, F, W Yes Non-homeless- Housewife
pathways to provide tangible help as well as develop empathy, Gabriel 40, M, W Yes Non-homeless- Manager
rapport, and understanding. A consistent theme that emerged dur- Pam 20, F, AF Yes Non-homeless - Student
ing conversation was the role of the CUB in participants’ lives. Mace 30, M, AF Yes In homeless pathway
Carlos 40, M, W Yes In homeless pathway
Many wore a CUB branded hoodie and shared how they had Thomas 30, M, AF Yes In homeless pathway
experienced positive transformation during their involvement Barbara 50, F, W Yes In homeless pathway
there. These conversations directed our attention to the idea of Jade 30, F, H Yes In homeless pathway
Edgar 20, M, W Yes In homeless pathway
transformation in services as an aspect of value creation. During
Chris 20, M, W Yes In homeless pathway
subsequent, focused stages of inquiry, we spent multiple hours Jade 30, F, AF Yes In homeless pathway
each week at the CUB for 2 months and began a process of pro- Malcolm 30, M, AF Yes In homeless pathway
gressive contextualization with observation and conversations. Kaleb 20, M, AF Yes In homeless pathway
Rita 20, F, H Yes In homeless pathway
Since value is socially constructed and unfolds through Abbey 40, F, W No Community: University Administration
interactions, we focused on eliciting narratives that individuals’ Tara 40, F, W No Community: Mayor Office-Housing
construct while interacting with the CUB. In addition to infor- Charles 40, M, W No Community: Chief of Police Force
mal conversations with 50 participants, we conducted depth Jackie 30, F, W No Community: Member of Local Charity
Michael 40, M, W No Community: Member of Local Charity
interviews lasting 30 minutes to 90 minutes, with 29 people Elena 40, F, H No Community: Newspaper Editor
who represent different kinds of actors in the value configura- Mike 30, M, H No Community: Manager of Local Business
tion space. We also examined local newspaper articles referen- Vicky 40, F, W No Community: Manager of Local Business
cing homelessness or the CUB, given their usefulness for
*Age in deciles, M ¼ male; F ¼ female; AF ¼ African American; H ¼ Hispanic;
tapping into public consensus and collective meaning (Hum- W ¼ Caucasian.
phreys 2010). In sum, we interacted with over 80 individuals
and conducted deeper analysis of 30 (Table 1). Ethnographic broken toy guitar to sing unabashedly about God’s love for
field notes, researcher diaries, and interviews became sources him. Everyone knows that Jerry will sing off key. Yet, his pres-
of data that were analyzed using phenomenological procedures ence is celebrated. His song is seen as a gift to learn from. John
(Thompson et al. 1989). Incorporating multilevel perspectives said, ‘‘they realize here’s a man, been made fun of his whole
helped produce a holistic account, and our tacking back and life, and I watch them cry as they listen because they have
forth between the data and literature progressed into organizing never been in a place that gave people [like Jerry] value.’’
our findings across the value creation spheres (Figure 1). Sub- To further develop our conceptual ideas, we probe them in this
sequently, we presented findings to individuals at the CUB to context to unpack how scenes like this reflect the transformative
ensure that the themes and accounts resonated with their expe- value of a service experience. We organize our findings around
rience and for a collaborative learning benefit. the spheres of value creation (Figure 1). Findings reveal how CUB
service design and practices facilitate transformative value cre-
ation by way of boundary-crossing, communitas, liminal experi-
Transformative Value: Empirical ences, and spiritual flow. Service impact also extends to the
Development broader city community. Specifically, we find the CUB service
community creatively reconfiguring resources and schema in
ways that challenge the dominant value discourse through: gener-
Where would Jerry be if he didn’t have the church under the
ating awareness, legitimizing needs, resolving ideological ten-
bridge? In jail? Dead? Don’t know. He probably wouldn’t be
the smiling face that’s so happy to see everybody, that everybody
sions, and propagating empathy. Thus, analyses reveal how the
knows, and that no one’s afraid of . . . that’s the transformation, CUB service contests and alters the spheres of value configuration
that’s both sides of the transformation–Jerry being changed and and illuminates transformative value creation.
the people around him being changed too. (Michael)

Jerry is an African American man in his 60s who deals with

Service Design and Value Propositions
a mental disability and chronic homelessness. Every week, he Holistic value propositions. The CUB service design promotes
jubilantly marches up to the makeshift CUB stage with a human flourishing through spiritual endeavor. The core offer

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

Blocker and Barrios
is a weekly service that blends band-led singing, stories from
people overcoming challenges by relying on faith and com-
munity, a talk on a spiritual topic, and connections to weekly
activities. If not for the way these service elements are config-
ured 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 mis-
sion, 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 ser-
vice (e.g., local mission trips), to name a few. Beyond these,
the holistic approach develops individuals’ personal capabil-
ities and potential for flourishing by connecting them to the
social service ecosystem for programs like supportive hous-
ing, 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 achieve-
ment 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 interpersonal-
centric service to set up an elaborate servicescape to facilitate
conversations (Bitner 1992). In contrast, the CUB ser-
vicescape 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 hang-
over, or expressions associated with mental disability.
Drawing on this nontraditional space, the CUB services-
cape offers a platform to ‘‘come as you are’’ to meet with oth-
ers under the bridge and reflect on life. In the founder’s
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
7
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 path-
way, 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 servi-
cescape 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 servi-
cescape. 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 struc-
ture . . . 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 anti-
structural 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 genuine-
ness 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 Journal of Service Research
Figure 2. CUB Servicescape.
spiritual services. It sets forth transformative value pro-
positions that are mobilized using holistic service offerings.
The cluster of resources nurtured in the anti-structural servi-
cescape provide opportunities to integrate positive self-
images and capabilities. Being freed from normative struc-
tures (e.g., class hierarchies) in the CUB servicescape pro-
motes 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 intersec-
tion of the CUB’s service design and communities, we iden-
tified two that facilitate transformative value creation for
homeless and nonhomeless alike—boundary-crossing and
communitas.
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
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 busi-
ness owner, or a university student. Boundary crossing reflects
a CUB service practice where individuals are coming into con-
tact 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 understand-
ing is that everyone under the bridge has equal value. Anyone
can be a ‘‘troll.’’ People approach boundary crossing with vary-
ing comfort. Some have more caution (e.g., new visitors) about
intermingling with individuals who appear to be homeless.
Blocker and Barrios
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 cross-
ing occurs before, during, and after the service, we observed
ways that seating arrangements reflected both boundary cross-
ing and boundary maintenance. In particular, proximity to the
stage revealed increasing concentrations of boundary crossing,
and staff discussed how some people over time would gradu-
ally 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 dif-
ferent 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 differ-
ent . . . 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. Simi-
larly, 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 imagina-
tion, whereby individuals in a homeless pathway are progres-
sively de-objectified and alternate paradigms of empathy
emerge. There is an initial ‘‘seeing of differences’’ that trans-
forms 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,
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
9
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 com-
plain 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 judg-
ment. 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 per-
son should continue leading, despite potential for undermining
collective influence. Across these cases, one can observe occa-
sions where a misuse of resources and negative engagements
can diminish value (Echeverri and Skålén 2011). What is more,
these behaviors and expressions are facilitated by an anti-
structural 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 mean-
ings that people form during the service experience create
opportunities to bond without regard for social standing or the
fear of being stigmatized. Muñiz 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, commu-
nion, 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 chil-
dren’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 mar-
ker of communitas. For example, Jade said ‘‘they treat every-
one 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 socioeco-
nomic 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 dra-
matic 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, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009, p. 31)
that create intersubjective transformative value through trigger-
ing critical reflection, new global meanings in life, and prog-
ress in the areas of identity and community. They are also a
conduit for emotional benefits (e.g., support to cope with hard-
ship) as well as capabilities, such as new perspectives and skills
about what it means to truly help others in need through sus-
tained engagement and concern.
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
Journal of Service Research
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 iden-
tity 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 experi-
ences 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 dig-
nity back. Some people lose that. It gives you honesty and
trust . . . I feel like when [people] leave, they’ll be uplifted spiri-
tually, 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 tra-
ditional church.
Blocker and Barrios
At the CUB, people like Cailyn can have a cathartic experi-
ence 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:
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 net-
work . . . 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)
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 chal-
lenges 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 pre-
viously are individuals that, for a variety of reasons, limit their
engagement in the CUB service to transactional-oriented par-
ticipation. For example, it is common for a handful of individ-
uals 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 cocre-
ate 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 cir-
cumstances. 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 indi-
viduals 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 cre-
ates 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.
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
11
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.
The business community around them hated them [home-
less] . . . 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)
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 dia-
logue (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 con-
flict 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 wor-
shipping 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 homeless-
ness 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 rheto-
ric. 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 pov-
erty reduction plan. More recently, a businessperson voiced
his concern that a deluge of panhandling was affecting busi-
ness. The outcome was a community campaign to educate
givers that ‘‘panhandling is not homelessness.’’ These initia-
tives reflect future-oriented thinking and a positive trajec-
tory of action, which contest fatalistic views that poverty
is intractable.
Resolving ideological tensions. For outsiders, the boundary cross-
ing at the CUB is symbolic. It contests the structural norms that
reinforce stigmas and discrimination. The highly visible loca-
tion (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 diffi-
culties of homelessness.
These community interactions help contest and alter a domi-
nant 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 high-
lighting 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 ‘‘deserv-
ingness’’ 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 home-
lessness. 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 dis-
course 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 oth-
ers. They’ve impressed upon us that poverty is an apolitical
problem that requires all our attention for the sake of our neigh-
borhoods and our future. (Editor, local newspaper)
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
Journal of Service Research
Empathetic cultural models. Finally, the CUB has helped alter the
cultural models people in the city use to think about homeless-
ness. Cultural models reflect the shared cognitive resources
that people use to navigate the world. When people see an indi-
vidual 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 some-
one 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 home-
less condition. In contrast, Michael said,
[CUB] has made homeless people less scary to the communi-
ty . . . 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 pro-
cess, 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. Spe-
cifically, at least six households with CUB members who are
‘‘social justice-minded people’’ have moved into an impover-
ished neighborhood with the aims of building relationships,
caring for neighbors, and revitalizing their street. These indi-
viduals 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 stake-
holders 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 vul-
nerable 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
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 transfor-
mative 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 prac-
tices 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 prac-
tices offer platforms for creative exchange of resources to facil-
itate intersubjective value. At a societal level, findings reveal
how services can facilitate the ascendancy of social conscious-
ness and inspire social action. Thus, we demonstrate that ser-
vices have the latent capacity to promote well-being on a
broader scale (Anderson and Ostrom 2010).
Analysis and iterative review of literature called our atten-
tion to four distinctions that differentiate transformative from
habitual value creation evaluative-projective orientations, glo-
bal meanings, eudaimonic outcomes, and virtuous trajectories.
First, transformative value creation is associated with evalua-
tive and projective orientations of thought and action (Emir-
bayer and Mische 1998). Evaluative orientations prompt
critical reflection of present situations in ways that create dis-
tance from past understandings of value and bring awareness
of new possibilities. Projective orientations prompt imagina-
tive ideas toward future value which hold potential for advan-
cing 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 proposi-
tions 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 pov-
erty 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
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
13
through transformative value might be linked with global
meaning such as psychological well-being (Martin and Hill
2012). What differentiates transformative value creation how-
ever 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 lit-
eracy, 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 tra-
jectories 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 over-
coming ‘‘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 cre-
ation at the micro level (Table 2, agent sphere) and macro
level (Table 3, social structure sphere). The tables also high-
light 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 transforma-
tive 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 capac-
ity to act and exert control over the social relations in which
one is enmeshed (Sewell 1992). Agency is a type of eudaimo-
nic 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
Table 2. Transformative Value Creation in the Micro-level Social Structure Sphere.

Panel A: Service design sphere—value propositions

Resource Integration to Facilitate Transformative Value Illustrative Dimensions Structural Resources Being Contested and Altered

Holistic value propositions

Re-shaping worldviews away from unhealthy views of self Evaluative-projective Social and cultural stigmas in poverty
Therapeutic ideas for coping and flourishing in hardship Global meanings Scripts of resignation to overlapping life burdens
Connecting participants to social service ecosystem Eudaimonic outcomes Fragmented paucity of resources in homelessness
Communal strategies (troll brand) for identity reformation Evaluative projective Self-worth based upon economic and social capital
Anti-structural servicescape
Liminal experiences and space for role transcendance Evaluative projective Disempowered roles in poverty
Granting access to an excluded/vulnerable population Global meanings Geographic barriers, norms for physical appearance

Panel B: Service practices sphere—intersubjective shared value

Resource Integration to Facilitate Transformative Value Illustrative Dimensions Structural Resources Being Contested and Altered

Boundary crossing

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

Psychological security to be with dissimilar others Virtuous trajectory Institutional segregation by socioeconomic status
Mitigating ‘‘fear of the stranger’’ via relationships Virtuous trajectory Transactional models of social action
Sharing resources/schema across socioeconomic strata Eudaimonic outcomes Class-based barriers to social support
Constructing communitas
Altering worldviews of friendship and self-identity Global meanings Social judgments and reticence toward intimacy
Sharing vulnerable stories for relief and progress Virtuous trajectory Guarding personal failures, keeping social distance
Promoting shared responsibility for others Eudaimonic outcomes Modes of isolation and apathy toward others
 Table 3. Transformative Value Creation in the Macro-level Social Structure Sphere.

Panel A: Service design sphere—value propositions

Resource Integration to Facilitate Transformative Value Illustrative Dimensions Structural Resources Being Contested and Altered

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
Virtuous trajectory Ideology of homelessness based on values and morality
Virtuous trajectory Homelessness as a fringe issue for the city, special groups
Global meanings Ideas of poverty learned via statistics, social distance
Global meanings Traditional views of leading social/religious organizations
Virtuous trajectory Geographical barriers that isolate exposure to poverty
Global meanings Sociocultural barriers that isolate exposure to poverty

Panel B: Service practices sphere—intersubjective shared value

Resource Integration to Facilitate Transformative Value Illustrative Dimensions Structural Resources Being Contested and Altered

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

Boundary crossing
Engaging in civic dialogue to mitigate fears Virtuous trajectory Traditional stigmas about poverty hold merit
Stimulating ‘‘voice’’ via cross-class networks Eudaimonic Impoverished people need advocates to speak for them
Inspiring ideological-based urban renewal Eudaimonic Urban decline is a city (not personal) responsibility
Constructing communitas
Building a community reputation of respect Virtuous trajectory Cultural assumptions of mischief or harm

15
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 find-
ings 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 anti-
structural servicescape offers greater potential for self-
expression 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 cul-
tivate 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 path-
ways, the transformative value cocreated through liminal
experiences and spiritual flow helps them transpose the nega-
tively 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 con-
cern (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, part-
nering 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, con-
sumers, employees, or others is a fundamental basis for organi-
zational 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
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
Journal of Service Research
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 foster-
ing 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, organi-
zations 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 ‘‘transfor-
mation’’ 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 organi-
zation’s voice in the political domain, as well as provide input
for innovating conventional marketing processes of segmen-
tation, 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 rela-
tional. Yet, we anticipate that facilitating evaluative-projective
orientations, global meanings, eudaimonic outcomes, and virtu-
ous trajectories demands a meaningfully higher dedication to
stakeholder relationships. In particular, we suspect that organiza-
tions aiming to create transformative value will need to take risks
and advocate for a ‘‘tribe’’ in the public domain. Such relation-
ships 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 trans-
formative 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 stimu-
late TSR and practice. Our conceptual development and synth-
esis 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 useful-
ness 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 trans-
formation. We also want to thank Jimmy Dorrell, the staff at
Mission Waco–Mission World, and the Church Under the Bridge for
Blocker and Barrios
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 anon-
ymous 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, author-
ship, 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 ger-
mane to transformative service research and consumption in pov-
erty. 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 con-
stellation 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, Skålén, and Tronvoll 2012). We also note that struc-
turation represents only one paradigm for understanding transfor-
mative 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 Experi-
ence,’’ 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 Transfor-
mative 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
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
17
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 Jer-
ome 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 Com-
bining 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 Direc-
tions, 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 Con-
text,’’ Applied Psychology, 51 (2), 269-290.
Barrios, Andrés, 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), ‘‘Nar-
rative Identity and Eudaimonic Well-Being,’’ Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 9 (1), 81-104.
Blocker, Christopher P., Daniel J. Flint, Matthew B. Myers, and
Stanley F. Slater (2011) ‘‘The Role of Proactive Customer Orien-
tation 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, José Rosa, Bigé
Saatcioglu, Carlos Trujillo, Debabrata Talukdar, and Rohit
Varman (2013) ‘‘Understanding Poverty and Promoting Poverty
Alleviation through Transformative Consumer Research,’’ Jour-
nal of Business Research 66 (8), 1195-1202.
Bitner Mary, Jo (1992), ‘‘Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical
Surroundings on Customers and Employees,’’ Journal of Mar-
keting, 56 (2), 57-57.
Burns, James (2004), Transforming Leadership. New York: Grove Press.
Chandler, Jennifer D. and Stephen L. Vargo (2011) ‘‘Contextualiza-
tion and Value-in-context: How Context Frames Exchange,’’ Mar-
keting 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 Direc-
tions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1993 (57), 47-56.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2009), Creativity: Flow and the Psychol-
ogy 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 Skålén (2011), ‘‘Co-creation and Co-
destruction: A Practice-theory Based Study of Interactive Value
Formation,’’ Marketing Theory, 11 (3), 351-373.
Edvardsson, Bo, Per Skålén, and Bård 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.
Grönroos, Christian and Päivi 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, Andrés Bar-
rios, Christopher P. Blocker, Catherine A. Coleman, Ahmet Ekici,
Hélène 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 Pihlström (2012), ‘‘Char-
acterizing Value as an Experience,’’ Journal of Service Research,
15 (1), 59-75.
Hill, Ronald (2002), ‘‘Service Provision through Public-Private Part-
nerships: An Ethnography of Service Delivery to Homeless Teen-
agers,’’ 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 Legitima-
tion of Consumption Practices: The case of Casino Gambling,’’
Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 490-510.
Karababa, Eminegül and Dannie Kjeldgaard (2014), ‘‘Value in Mar-
keting: Toward Sociocultural Perspectives,’’ Marketing Theory,
14 (1), 119-127.
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
Journal of Service Research
Kozinets, Robert, John Sherry, Diana Storm, Adam Duhachek,
Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and Benét 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 Contribu-
tions in Marketing,’’ Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 136-174.
Martin, Kelly D. and Ronald P. Hill (2012) ‘‘Life Satisfaction, Self-
Determination, 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, Corne-
lia Pechmann and Julie Ozanne, eds. New York, NY: Routledge,
xv-xviii.
Monson, Christian (2012), ‘‘Spiritual Flow: The Influence of Reli-
gious Experience on Psychological Well-being,’’ dissertation,
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana.
Muñiz, 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 Adjust-
ment to Stressful Life Events,’’ Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2),
257-301.
Peñaloza, 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 (13-
14), 1404-1425.
Ryff, Carol (1989), ‘‘Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations
on the Meaning of Psychological Well-being,’’ Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 57 (6), 1069-1081.
Blocker and Barrios
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 Michèle Lamont (2010),
‘‘Reconsidering Culture and Poverty,’’ The ANNALS of the Ameri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 629 (1), 6-27.
St. James, Yannik Jay Handelman, and Shirley Taylor (2011), ‘‘Magi-
cal 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 Mar-
keting Science, 36 (1), 1-10.
Warde, Alan (2005), ‘‘Consumption and Theories of Practice,’’ Jour-
nal of Consumer Culture, 5 (2), 131-153.
Downloaded from jsr.sagepub.com by guest on May 16, 2015
View publication stats
19
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 (chris.blocker@colostate.edu) 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 pub-
lished 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.
Andrés Barrios (andr-bar@uniandes.edu.co) is an assistant professor
of marketing at the Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, 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, Con-
sumer Culture Theory, and Subsistence Marketplaces. His work has
been published in the Journal of Business Research, Research in Con-
sumer Behavior, Advances in Consumer Research, and the Transfor-
mative Consumer Research 2012 Book.