Search results

This paper aims to present a holistic framework, termed ShaRInK (Sharer, Relations, Institution, Knowledge), that depicts key categories of influences that shape individual perceptions of knowledge sharing within an organisational setting.

An exploratory and qualitative case study strategy in which empirical data were gathered from 24 interviewees that were based in four different branches (i.e. China, The Netherlands, the UK and the USA) of a single information technology services organisation.

The findings led to a holistic framework that depicts four key categories of influences that shape knowledge sharing from an individual perspective: attitudes and characteristics of the sharers, relations between the sharers, institutions which act as a united entity on sharer perceptions and knowledge itself. Furthermore, the four key influences not only shape knowledge sharing independently but are intertwined and have a synergistic effect. The ShaRInK framework is formed by combining these.

The findings indicate that knowledge sharing from an individual-level perspective is a more complex phenomenon than currently portrayed in the literature. All four key influences, each being fundamentally different in nature, and their relationships should be taken into account. Equally, the ShaRInK framework can be applied by organisations when developing a knowledge-sharing strategy or auditing existing strategies.

In this chapter, I analyse the ethics of organisations assessing applicants based on group risk statistics; for example, parole boards consider information predicting recidivism risk, and employers want to minimise the risk of selecting lower-productivity employees. The organisational rejection of applicants from risky groups is explored as a form of discrimination to help identify the distinct ethical implications for applicant autonomy from the use of group risk statistics. Contra arguments from Schoeman (1987) and Schauer (2003), I argue that there is a substantive difference between assessing applicants directly through group statistics rather than including ‘individualised’ evidence. This difference impacts on the agency of applicants in the process. As organisations have reason to statistically assess applicants, some considerations for increasing applicant agency in the process are suggested. These include focusing on the nature of the factors used to assess applicants (static or dynamic), the transparency of the process to applicants, and the use of statistics specific to individuals.

Disaster responders play a crucial role in providing aid to individuals and communities following catastrophic events. Being tasked to protect and preserve life and property, these groups of professionals are constantly exposed to various hazards, which puts them at risk of negative mental health consequences. This chapter describes and discusses these mental health effects and interventions for disaster responders in Southeast Asia. The chapter defines who the disaster responders are in Southeast Asian countries. Drawing from the literature, this chapter enumerates the various positive and negative psychological consequences of disaster response, and the risk and protective factors associated with disaster response work. This chapter also describes the different interventions, such as psychological first aid and psychotherapy, following the Inter-agency Standing Committee (IASC) (2007) guidelines on conducting mental health and psychosocial support services (MHPSS), and focusing on the Southeast Asian context. This chapter ends with a discussion of the different challenges of providing MHPSS in Southeast Asia and with some recommendations on how to improve the delivery of these services and the mental health of disaster responders in general.

This paper aims to evaluate different approaches for the parallelization of compute-intensive tasks. The study compares a Java multi-threaded algorithm, distributed computing solutions with MapReduce (Apache Hadoop) and resilient distributed data set (RDD) (Apache Spark) paradigms and a graphics processing unit (GPU) approach with Numba for compute unified device architecture (CUDA).

The paper uses a simple but computationally intensive puzzle as a case study for experiments. To find all solutions using brute force search, 15! permutations had to be computed and tested against the solution rules. The experimental application comprises a Java multi-threaded algorithm, distributed computing solutions with MapReduce (Apache Hadoop) and RDD (Apache Spark) paradigms and a GPU approach with Numba for CUDA. The implementations were benchmarked on Amazon-EC2 instances for performance and scalability measurements.

The comparison of the solutions with Apache Hadoop and Apache Spark under Amazon EMR showed that the processing time measured in CPU minutes with Spark was up to 30% lower, while the performance of Spark especially benefits from an increasing number of tasks. With the CUDA implementation, more than 16 times faster execution is achievable for the same price compared to the Spark solution. Apart from the multi-threaded implementation, the processing times of all solutions scale approximately linearly. Finally, several application suggestions for the different parallelization approaches are derived from the insights of this study.

There are numerous studies that have examined the performance of parallelization approaches. Most of these studies deal with processing large amounts of data or mathematical problems. This work, in contrast, compares these technologies on their ability to implement computationally intensive distributed algorithms.

In crafting Auditing Standard No.3 (AS3), a primary objective of the PCAOB was to reduce auditors' exposure to litigation by raising the standard of care for audit documentation. We examine whether the increased documentation requirements of AS3 affect legal professionals' perceptions of audit quality and auditor responsibility in the event of an audit failure. Our experiment consists of a 3 × 2 between-participants design with law students serving as proxies for legal professionals. The results of our experiment indicate that when an audit procedure, namely the investigation of inconsistent evidence, is not required to be documented, legal professionals perceive the performance of the work itself but not its documentation to significantly increase audit quality and reduce the auditor's responsibility for an audit failure. When documentation of the procedure is required, as per AS3, legal professionals perceive enhanced audit quality and reduced auditor responsibility only if the performance of the work is documented.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of exchange modes – negotiated, reciprocal, generalized, and productive – on inter-employee knowledge sharing.

Based on the affect theory of social exchange, a theoretical model was developed and empirically tested using a survey of 691 employees from 15 North American credit unions.

The negotiated mode of knowledge exchange, i.e. when a knowledge contributor explicitly establishes reciprocation conditions with a recipient, develops negative knowledge sharing attitude. The reciprocal mode, i.e. when a knowledge donor assumes that a receiver will reciprocate, has no effect on knowledge sharing attitude. The generalized exchange form, i.e. when a knowledge contributor believes that other organizational members may reciprocate, is weakly related to knowledge sharing attitude. The productive exchange mode, i.e. when a knowledge provider assumes he or she is a responsible citizen within a cooperative enterprise, strongly facilitates the development of knowledge sharing attitude, which, in turn, leads to knowledge sharing intentions.

To facilitate inter-employee knowledge sharing, managers should focus on the development of positive knowledge sharing culture when all employees believe they contribute to a common good instead of expecting reciprocal benefits.

This is one of the first studies to apply the affect theory of social exchange to study knowledge sharing.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

A longstanding question of American constitutionalism emerges out of the fact that constitutions demand fidelity. By virtue of what is the American Constitution binding? Zevit contends that many of the explanations of constitutional fidelity offered today fail to reconcile Americans’ submission to a Constitution written and ratified by generations of long ago with their claim (or aspiration) to be self-governing as a People today. Zevit introduces one type of explanation (the aptness explanation) that does not contain this flaw, and, drawing on an expansive definition of culture as a notion that encompasses the legal-political, offers the concepts of legal-political culture and baseline community as a framework for assessing the Constitution’s aptness while maintaining the People’s self-rule. She argues that constitutional aptness secures the foundations of constitutional legitimacy.

The formality of modern law is a constitutive element in its operation, but the “revolt against formalism” and the charge of mechanical jurisprudence are also as old as the law. This chapter focuses on formalism in legal decision-making in hard cases and assumes that contemporary decision-making in law combines formalistic with nonformalistic expressions as part of its routine operation. The research develops a sensitive multidimensional measure that will be used to evaluate legal texts by examining various vectors of formalism. It begins by exploring diverse jurisprudential cultures of formalism, which have developed mainly in American legal thought. Based on the historical analysis of cultures of formalism, the chapter continues to frame eight claims of formalism that have all been contested in legal writing. It proposes to examine the following parameters, based on these claims: (1) the introduction and framing of the legal question; (2) the use of extralegal arguments; (3) reliance on policy arguments and on legal principles; (4) reference to discretion and choice; (5) the relationship between what is presented as facts and what is presented as norms; (6) preservation of traditional boundaries in law; (7) the use of professional judicial rhetoric; (8) the gap between law in the books and law in action; and (9) judicial stability and institutional deference. Each of these parameters can be used to evaluate the level of formalism in a concrete text. The interplay between diverse evaluations of the same case is a subject for inquiry and contemplation. These parameters can also be redefined as variables for a quantitative content analysis, and legal decisions can be coded accordingly. This will enable an analysis of differences between justices, legal issues, legal jurisdictions, and time frames, as well as the correlation between the various parameters of formalism. The tendency to formalism, according to the analysis here, is never pure and is part of a complex legal culture that usually combines formalistic elements with nonformalistic ones.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the phrase “just and equitable”, and associated terminology, within New Zealand’s strata law, to inform other jurisdictions. In particular, this paper temporarily suspends the notion of a statutory hendiadys to consider what kind of justice is reflected in judicial consideration of the phrase.

This paper takes a mixed-methods approach, drawing on a combination of black-letter law, property law theory and insights from literary and philosophical analysis.

While justice is often considered as “treating like cases alike”, this is not apparent from this study. The analysis shows that different kinds of justice outcomes emerge, with some emphasis on justice as economic efficiency. In addition, the paper highlights the inherent uncertainty in what is “just and equitable” and how associated disjunctive phrases, such as “unjust or inequitable” are still treated as hendiadys, but are no more clear.

The research is limited to consideration of a single jurisdiction (New Zealand), though the useful degree of case law from this jurisdiction provides broad insight.

Among other things, the paper argues for further consideration of the usefulness of the “just and equitable” test in light of the kind of justice we want to achieve. The addition of mandatory considerations to existing statutory tests may allow more of a focus, beyond the exigencies of individual cases or narrow outcomes of economic efficiency.

While there is existing literature on the “just and equitable” phrase within strata law, the paper is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to provide an analysis focused on how suspending the statutory hendiadys normally inherent in “just and equitable” provides insight into the kind of justice that emerges from the application of this test within a single strata jurisdiction. As such, the paper provides lessons for other jurisdictions on how to improve relevant statute and case law outcomes.