Search results

This article aims to represent three ethnographers researching an organizational event within academia: the Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry. It explores the divergent viewpoints of their ethnographic experiences as well as reflecting upon their relationships with each other as they attempted to understand each others’ viewpoints.

This ethnographic project involved participant observation, full participation, and narrative interviews. However, as the project continued, it evolved to reflexively examining the authors’ own viewpoints and relationships challenges.

This paper contributes to understanding ethnographic research of organizational events in several ways. First, it is an exemplar of how three ethnographers examining the same organizational event view it through differing lenses. Secondly, it shows how the authors worked together through the research, struggling to understand each others’ varied political and personal lenses through dialogue.

The research examined only one organizational event, therefore the findings are specific to this site and the same results may not necessarily be found in other organizations.

This paper is unique in that three ethnographers from different generations and different political worldviews can come together for the purposes of research, examine an organizational event and learn to cooperate with and appreciate each others’ viewpoints.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact the workplace can have on knowledge working for a multi‐generational workforce.

A case study analysis is undertaken of Leeds City Council (LCC) workplace in the UK.

The findings from the study show that in the context of LCC there are some key differences between the generations regarding knowledge working preferences for formal/informal meeting spaces. In other aspects, such as knowledge sharing, the generations appear to agree on key aspects such as mentoring and team‐based working environments.

Corporate real estate managers can use the research findings to assist them in providing a range of workplace settings to enhance multi‐generational interaction.

This paper fills a gap in current research by evaluating workplace preferences based on generational differences.

The purpose of this paper is to provide to the Board of Directors and CEOs of a firm to be aware of and accountable for the information they provide to the public. As long as the quality of the companies’ public information is high, it will be able to retain its investors as well as to obtain new ones more easily.

This paper introduces a Multi-Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) tool with the use of the PROMETHEE II method to formulate an alternative aggregate ESG quality approach. We conduct comparisons in a sectorial and regional based perspective during different exam periods before and after the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), in an attempt to provide a robust framework for corporate disclosure reporting.

The findings are of particular interest to both scholars and decision-makers, including providers of corporate governance indices and rating agencies. The innovation of this paper lies among others in using the MCDA method with the ESG framework, which proposes a combination of qualitative and quantitative criteria, enabling experienced and/or not experienced analysts to avoid manipulating techniques in business information.

The sample of companies based on the US and Europe companies incorporating only large-sized ones.

Findings are of particular interest to both scholars and decision-makers including providers of corporate governance indices and rating agencies.

Better understanding features pay key importance for increasing the “quality” information in firms financial statements, especially after the use of IFRS in reporting standards.

The authors proceed to analysis using a multiple perspective use that is decomposed into the following options: (a) Time-period oriented option, (b) Regional-oriented option and (c) Sectoral-oriented option respectively.

I SAW him only once—and that was in Edinburgh, thirty‐seven years ago. He had just arrived (as I heard later from one who knew him, and to whom I announced with youthful joy my glimpse of him) from St. Andrews, had been examining the bookshops, book‐dips, in the neighbourhood of the University and, with an armful of volumes, was returning from the auld toon to the new one on his way to Mackay and Chisholm's in Princes Street to buy an opal ring.

Schools in resource challenged communities require principal approaches that break patterns of low expectations and low student achievement. This study identifies Alabama’s “outlier” schools that have been consistently successful in attaining higher student outcomes than their neighboring schools despite their similar community conditions. Then, it describes the perspectives and practices of principals leading these outlier schools. The purpose of this paper is to discuss findings on principal leadership in five of Alabama's outlier schools.

In a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods design, the authors first use state administrative data to identify which Alabama schools had better results than their peers as evidenced by standardized testing between 2016 and 2020. Then, through semi-structured interviews, they examine the beliefs and approaches of five principals who are currently leading an outlier school. The frame of contextual leadership provides a deeper understanding of how these principals navigate successful schools in the midst of challenging community influences.

The evidence demonstrated that (1) community factors of low education, high unemployment, single-parent households and generational poverty are associated with considerably lower levels of student growth and achievement; (2) measured school and community factors do not explain student growth and achievement in these outlier schools; (3) outlier principals have a realistic view of their community’s challenges but focus on supporting students through a context sensitive, relational approach that emphasizes assets over limitations.

While research has attended to leadership in turnaround schools and effective schools, there is little literature on principals leading in positive outlier schools. This study contributes to the literature on school leadership in resource challenged contexts by identifying high performing, resource challenged schools and then showing the perspectives and practices of principals who lead in schools that have consistently achieved better than expected student outcomes. It extends the construct of “outlier leadership” in education and connects it to contextual leadership in schools.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what is weighted more by the investors when valuing a dual-class firm’s stock – greater agency costs or better accrual quality of the dual-class firm in contrast to the single-class firm.

Using the financial data of firms issuing multiple classes of stock (hereafter dual-class firms) and firms issuing single class of stock (hereafter single-class firms), the authors measure the effect of firm’s ownership structure (dual class versus single class) on the earnings response coefficients (ERCs) of prior, current and future period earnings.

The authors find that investors care more about agency costs than the quality of accruals in evaluating the earnings of dual-class firms. Specifically, the authors find that current annual returns of the firm are negatively associated with dual-class ownership structure and that earnings informativeness and predictability are decreasing in dual-class ownership of the firm as reflected in decreasing ERCs.

This study adds to prior literature on dual-class ownership which reports greater agency costs and better accrual quality at dual-class firms in contrast to single-class firms. This study contributes to the literature on earnings informativeness and predictability by evaluating the effect of ownership structure on the ERCs of the firm. Investors should be careful when valuing a dual-class firm and should consider agency costs in addition to accrual quality of reported earnings at such firms.

This paper aims to analyse normative corporate governance evolution in the UK between 1995 and 2014 against the benchmark of Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) regulatory principles.

Methodologically, the authors conduct an empirical, longitudinal data set analysis of the formative years of UK normative corporate governance development between 1995 and 2014. We provide a qualitative discussion of the empirical evidence that links the type of UK regulatory corporate governance development to financial market growth thereby adopting a mixed approach based on quantitative and qualitative research methods.

The authors find that compared to the OECD model of corporate governance, the UK model is less rigid following a more self-regulatory approach based upon a “comply or explain” paradigm. Thus it is scored below corporate governance systems that follow a compulsory implementation model. However, even with such “low” tilt towards formal shareholder primacy norms, the UK has the best performing financial market. As a quasi-empirical study, the authors suggest that there are several historical and economic reasons for this, which together with a robust rule of law in the UK contribute to this performance – and the law especially the type or tilt is less relevant.

This is the first of its kind empirical, longitudinal data set analysis with qualitative elements that links empirical evidence to regulatory developments in the wider context of UK corporate governance evolution.