Search results

In this article, we reflect on how smart technology is transforming service research discourses about service innovation and value co-creation. We adopt the concept of technology smartness’ to refer to the ability of technology to sense, adapt and learn from interactions. Accordingly, we seek to address how smart technologies (i.e. cognitive and distributed technology) can be powerful resources, capable of innovating in relation to actors’ agency, the structure of the service ecosystem and value co-creation practices.

This conceptual article integrates evidence from the existing theories with illustrative examples to advance research on service innovation and value co-creation.

Through the performative utterances of new tech words, such as onlife and materiality, this article identifies the emergence of innovative forms of agency and structure. Onlife agency entails automated, relational and performative forms, which provide for new decision-making capabilities and expanded opportunities to co-create value. Phygital materiality pertains to new structural features, comprised of new resources and contexts that have distinctive intelligence, autonomy and performativity. The dialectic between onlife agency and phygital materiality (structure) lies in the agencement of smart tech–enabled value co-creation practices based on the notion of becoming that involves not only resources but also actors and contexts.

This paper proposes a novel conceptual framework that advances a tech-based ecology for service ecosystems, in which value co-creation is enacted by the smartness of technology, which emerges through systemic and performative intra-actions between actors (onlife agency), resources and contexts (phygital materiality and structure).

The purpose of this paper is to summarise and reflect upon key issues at the interface of prices, information and regulation with a focus upon the stock market in context. Reflecting upon academic research in the area of efficient markets, and regulatory policy, the concern is to discern issues in terms of policy and support for policy. What does the research imply for policy? Is it possible that the research, perhaps given its rhetoric, can be misinterpreted in relation to policy? The study is also concerned to develop avenues for future research based on these considerations.

The paper is an analytical and critical review and writing.

The reading of the research suggests a pragmatic regulatory policy that should be concerned to improve stock market functioning, including with respect to information, as well as the context of which this is part. At the same time, the literature may be read as promoting anti-regulatory policy.

On the one hand, these are consistent with the pragmatic policy referred to above. On the other hand, further research is suggested to explore substantively the rhetoric of the research and its interpretation and to explore understandings of the research and its implications amongst key constituencies in practice.

The concern is to bring key insights from the academic literature together with a view to promoting a pragmatic policy orientation, while cautioning in a critical perspective about how this academic literature and research might be interpreted from a policy perspective.

This chapter explores the results of an international survey (RAAAP-2) to provide global insight into research management and administration (RMA) as a relatively new field of investigation within the area of higher education management (HEM). Building on that extensive survey, the purpose of this chapter is to investigate qualitatively how and why people become and remain research managers and administrators, focussing primarily on their skills, roles, and career paths.

Findings from the analysis confirm that a career in RMA is rarely an intentional choice and can be described as labyrinthine, which could be even compared and contrasted with a concertine academic career described by Whitchurch et al. (2021). While conclusions confirm the gender implications of the profession, which is overall highly ‘female’; further conclusion sheds light on RMAs across regions and suggests how this varied ecosystem could even undermine the recognition of RMA as a profession.