Search results

Starting in the late 1950s with the creation of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA), followed by the formation of other professional organisations both in the USA and Europe, there was a growing sense that research management was indeed a profession. One goal was the creation of professional standards that would lead to a standard training curriculum and, ultimately, a professional credential, and there have been many attempts at developing research administration certification. Now, in the US, accreditation through the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) exam has become ubiquitous, whereas in other parts of the world, certification by portfolio is more common. This chapter will compare and contrast the salient features of certification, certificates, and degree programs in research administration and review their development and growth over the past 30 years. The chapter will discuss their relative merits and how they work to advance the profession of research administration.

The Government of Ireland, through the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DoFHERIS), sets the framework for the national research ecosystem. Within that ecosystem, the Research Management and Administrators (RMA) community evolved in response to changing circumstances and continues to evolve becoming a more professional and expert community. The profile of the community, admittedly based on a small sampling, is normal with a hint that females occupy the most senior roles. Most Irish research-performing organisations (RPOs) including the HE sector, College and State Research Organisations (CSRO), and the Health Service have RMA members active in The European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA). The next step in the profession’s evolution in Ireland has to be the development of a single, national, and inclusive RMA network providing a representative voice for the profession with respect to issues such as career development and career paths.

Significant advances have been made in using applied methodological approaches. These approaches facilitate critical and creative ways to generate new knowledge, encouraging researchers to explore novel research questions which could not be sufficiently addressed using traditional “branded” methodologies. It is important that, in addition to design, researchers consider the most appropriate methods to collect data. The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of the draw and tell method in the context of an interpretive descriptive study.

Given the challenges associated with eliciting responses from adolescent populations, in addition to the use of a semi-structured interview guide, the authors encouraged adolescent participants to produce drawings as part of an interpretive descriptive study.

Despite the fact that drawings are seldom used with adolescents during research interviews, the authors found this method promoted conversation and facilitated deep exploration into adolescents' perspectives.

The authors argue that this creative approach to data collection should be embraced by researchers engaging in applied methodological research, particularly with participants who may be challenging to engage. Drawings, although seldom used with adolescent research participants, can stimulate engagement and facilitate conversations.

Adolescent mental health is a global concern. There is an urgent need for creative, multimedia interventions reflecting adolescent culture to promote mental health literacy and well-being. This study aims to assess the impact of a film-based intervention on adolescent mental health literacy, well-being and resilience.

A pretest-posttest intervention with a multi-methods evaluation was used. A convenience sample of ten schools facilitated students aged 15–17 years to engage in an online intervention (film, post-film discussion, well-being Webinar). Participants completed surveys on well-being, resilience, stigma, mental health knowledge and help-seeking. Five teachers who facilitated the intervention participated in post-implementation interviews or provided a written submission. Analysis included paired-t-test and effect size calculation and thematic analysis.

Matched pretest-posttest data were available on 101 participants. There were significant increases in well-being, personal resilience and help-seeking attitudes for personal/emotional problems, and suicidal ideation. Participants’ free-text comments suggested the intervention was well-received, encouraging them to speak more openly about mental health. Teachers similarly endorsed the intervention, especially the focus on resilience.

Intinn shows promise in improving adolescents’ mental health literacy and well-being. Film-based interventions may encourage adolescents to seek professional help for their mental health, thus facilitating early intervention.

This paper aims to examine the use of coproduction to create a film “Do You See Me?”, to amplify the voices of a “hard to reach” group: older lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) victim-survivors of domestic abuse (DA).

Qualitative methods were used as part of the co-production, which included two practitioner focus groups and 14 narrative interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning persons or the community (LGBTQ+) victim-survivors.

Despite differences in gender, sexualities, roles and “lived experiences” across stakeholders, there was a shared aim to ensure victim-survivors had a sense of ownership in this endeavour. Consequently, a positive reciprocity existed that helped to foster effective communication, allow for capacity building and subsequent knowledge exchange. The collaboration produced a nuanced meta-narrative making visible the “lived experiences” of LGB victim-survivors’ perceptions of perpetrator behaviours.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is original in two ways, firstly, providing insights into the “lived experiences” of an invisible group; older LGBTQ+ victim-survivors, and secondly, in involving them in the co-production of a film. The paper aims to reveal how interdependencies that developed between stakeholders helped to disrupt understandings, develop new ways of knowing and build levels of trust. Group interactions helped to dismantle hierarchies, so those with experiential knowledge: the survivors, had greater control throughout the research process. The paper is significant in providing a critical reflection on the ethical, methodological and resource challenges involved in co-production. It also makes recommendations for researchers and funders about the value of using co-production as a method to engage with hard-to-reach groups.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how legitimacy is gained, maintained or repaired through direct action with salient stakeholders and/or through external reporting, by using a number of empirical case vignettes within a single case study organisation.

The study investigates a foreign affiliate of a large multinational organisation involved in an environmentally sensitive industry. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with 26 participants, organisational reports and participation in the organisation’s annual environmental management seminar and a stakeholder engagement meeting.

Four vignettes featuring environmental issues illustrate the complexity of organisational responses. Issue visibility, stakeholder salience and stakeholder interconnectedness influence a company’s action to manage legitimacy. In the short-term, environmental issues which affected salient stakeholders resulted in swift and direct action to protect pragmatic legitimacy, but external reporting did not feature in legitimacy management efforts. Highly visible issues to the public, regulators and the media, however, resulted in direct action together with external reporting to manage wider stakeholder perceptions. External reporting was used superficially, along with a broad suite of communication strategies, to gain legitimacy in the long-term decision about the company’s future in New Zealand.

This paper outlines how episodic encounters to manage strategic legitimacy with salient stakeholders in the short-term are theoretically distinct, but nonetheless linked to continual efforts to maintain institutional legitimacy. Case vignettes highlight how pragmatic legitimacy via dispositional legitimacy can be managed with direct action in the short-term to influence a limited range of salient stakeholders. The way external reporting features in legitimacy management is limited, although this has predominantly been the focus of prior research. Only where an environmental incident damages legitimacy to a larger number of stakeholders is external reporting also used to buttress community support.

The concept of legitimacy is comprehensively applied, linking the strategic and institutional arms of legitimacy and illustrating how episodic actions are taken to manage legitimacy in the short-term with continual efforts to manage legitimacy in the long-term. Stakeholder salience and networks are brought in as novel theoretical extensions to provide a deeper understanding of the interrelationships between these key concepts with a unique case study.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of sustainability governance through the unfolding hybridisation process between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility and the implications of this for understanding patterns in sustainability reporting over time.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill incident is an extreme case study undertaken to examine its implications on the organisational legitimacy of British Petroleum (BP) and the latter’s response to the incident and beyond. The paper draws on Suchman’s legitimacy framework (1995) to understand sustainability governance as an organisational practice that evolved post the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to manage BP’s legitimacy. It draws on archival records and documentation from 2008 to 2017, as key sources for data collection, using interrogation by NVivo software.

Sustainability governance is a sound practice that was socially constructed to manage the re-legitimatisation process following the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It is characterised by broadness (the interplay between the corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disciplines), dynamic (developing the tactics to repair and maintain legitimacy), agility (conforming to the accountability for socially responsible investment and ensuring steps towards geopolitically responsible investment) and interdependence (reflecting composition and interactions).

This paper has practical implications for organisations, in terms of sustainability governance’s constitution, mechanism and characteristics.

This paper has implications not only for organisations, in terms of sustainability governance’s characteristics, but also for policy-makers, regulators and accounting education. However, the present paper’s insights are achieved through an in-depth and longitudinal case study.

This paper has problematized the concept of sustainability governance and elaborated its evolution (the emergence, enactment, deployment and interplay) process. The sustainability governance showed an otherwise organisational response that moves our understanding of the deployment of disclosure for complex organisational change as a way to discredit events.

Daring to challenge the status quo impacts innovation. Yet, successful outcomes depend on individual risk-taking and choice to influence others to support new ideas. This Challenging the Status Quo exercise illustrates how leaders use power and influencing tactics to challenge norms by analyzing Donald Trump’s journey as the 45^th U.S. President to defy experts and successfully influence followers to support his non-traditional candidacy: businessman lacking political experience becoming leader of the free world. Through integrating videoclips and polls, instructors make power visible, relevant, and thought-provoking as students apply power theory and influencing tactics perspectives to analyze (a) how leaders impact followers’ perceptions, (b) students mutual-influencing strategies, (c) power’s relationship with social identity and privilege, and (d) social impact on innovation via activism and free speech.