Search results
1 – 3 of 3Nkeiruka N. Ndubuka-McCallum, David R. Jones and Peter Rodgers
Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society…
Abstract
Purpose
Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.
Design/methodology/approach
This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.
Findings
The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.
Originality/value
This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.
Details
Keywords
Yasmine Chahed, Robert Charnock, Sabina Du Rietz Dahlström, Niels Joseph Lennon, Tommaso Palermo, Cristiana Parisi, Dane Pflueger, Andreas Sundström, Dorothy Toh and Lichen Yu
The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production through research activities “other than” those directly focused on making progress with their own, to-be-published, research papers in a context associated with the “publish or perish” (PoP) mentality.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing broadly on the notion of technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), this reflective essay develops upon the experiences of the authors in organizing and participating in a series of nine workshops undertaken between June 2013 and April 2021, as well as the arduous process of writing this paper itself. Retrospective accounts, workshop materials, email exchanges and surveys of workshop participants provide the key data sources for the analysis presented in the paper.
Findings
The paper shows how the organization of the workshops is intertwined with the building of a small community of ECRs and exploration of how to address the perceived limitations of a “gap-spotting” approach to developing research ideas and questions. The analysis foregrounds how the workshops provide a seemingly valuable research experience that is not without contradictions. Workshop participation reveals tensions between engagement in activities “other than” working on papers for publication and institutionalized pressures to produce publication outputs, between the (weak) perceived status of ECRs in the field and the aspiration to make a scholarly contribution, and between the desire to develop a personally satisfying intellectual journey and the pressure to respond to requirements that allow access to a wider community of scholars.
Originality/value
Our analysis contributes to debates about the ways in which seemingly valuable outputs are produced in academia despite a pervasive “publish or perish” mentality. The analysis also shows how reflexive writing can help to better understand the opportunities and challenges of pursuing activities that might be considered “unproductive” because they are not directly related to to-be-published papers.
Details
Keywords
Abdullah H. Alnasser, Mohammad A. Hassanain, Mustafa A. Alnasser and Ali H. Alnasser
This study aims to identify and assess the factors challenging the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare workplaces.
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to identify and assess the factors challenging the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare workplaces.
Design/methodology/approach
The study utilized a mixed approach, that starts with a literature review, then developing and testing a questionnaire survey of the factors challenging the integration of AI technologies in healthcare workplaces. In total, 46 factors were identified and classified under 6 groups. These factors were assessed by four different stakeholder categories: facilities managers, medical staff, operational staff and patients/visitors. The evaluations gathered were examined to determine the relative importance index (RII), importance rating (IR) and ranking of each factor.
Findings
All 46 factors were assessed as “Very Important” through the overall assessment by the four stakeholder categories. The results indicated that the most important factors, across all groups, are “AI ability to learn from patient data”, “insufficient data privacy measures for patients”, “availability of technical support and maintenance services”, “physicians’ acceptance of AI in healthcare”, “reliability and uptime of AI systems” and “ability to reduce medical errors”.
Practical implications
Determining the importance ratings of the factors can lead to better resource allocation and the development of strategies to facilitate the adoption and implementation of these technologies, thus promoting the development of innovative solutions to improve healthcare practices.
Originality/value
This study contributes to the body of knowledge in the domain of technology adoption and implementation in the medical workplace, through improving stakeholders’ comprehension of the factors challenging the integration of AI technologies.
Details