Search results

The purpose of this paper is to point out the potential for further theorizing of the concept of mindfulness, by extending and nuancing present accounts of East‐West dichotomies in relation to the concept.

The paper takes the form of a literature review.

Dichotomies of Western and Eastern approaches to mindfulness can be extended by analyzing key elements of their respective philosophies, notably through their different views on permanence versus impermanence, uni‐directional versus mutual causality and conceptual versus non‐conceptual knowledge. Through these key elements, a more nuanced picture of Eastern and Western elements can be identified in relation to quality management research and practice. The dual roots in Eastern and Western contexts point at the potential for further theorizing inherent in the concept of mindfulness.

This paper takes a broad and nuancing view on present dichotomies of Eastern and Western accounts on mindfulness and points at the concept's future potential.

The purpose of this introductory paper is a harbinger to the collection of scholarly articles by some well‐known international scholars in quality and business fields to this special edition of IJQRM on mindfulness and quality in small and large firms. It also provides an analysis of existing research on mindfulness in general.

Through a survey of secondary data, this conceptual paper reviews the theory and extant literature on mindfulness, quality and reliability in small and large firms, and provides a picture of the application of the mindfulness theory in different disciplines, including business.

First, mindfulness enhances quality and mindlessness diminishes it. Second, mindfulness‐based approaches to quality may offer a more resilient and sustainable solution to quality and reliability issues facing organisations, compared to routine‐based approaches.

The paper shows how management approaches that promote human cognition of quality and reliability issues in organisations and capacity to develop multiple effective and resilient solutions can better serve businesses than the routine‐based quality and management initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the literature debating research policy, research and the role of researchers, in discussing a single researcher's (Jan‐Erik Gröjer's) research during the 1980s and 1990s.

Jan‐Erik Gröjer's publications during the period are compared with different research modes 1 and 2, communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality and scepticism and PLACE within this polarized world, i.e. between demands from different research ideologies universities as well as individual researchers perform their research.

This paper can be read as both a contribution to the debate about the researcher's role and as a tribute to a friend who was able to investigate and practise different roles: normative and critical, theoretical and applied and provocative and humble, to name a few.

Further case studies of single researchers could serve as a valuable input to the discussion of different research ideologies.

The paper could be used in, e.g., doctoral student education when discussing the researcher's role but also when discussing the role of university research in general.

The used research modes have not before been analyzed using a single researcher as a case. It could be useful for individual researchers as well as in discussions about management of universities.

The purpose of the paper is to reflect on how sensegiving cues are encapsulated in models of reporting for human resources. This has been by investigating elements, arguments and formats of the models.

This paper focuses on the three discourses of human resource reporting that Jan‐Erik Gröjer is a part of. This paper is an appreciation of the importance of Jan‐Erik's work in the field of human resource communication as well as an illustration of how ideas and models changes over time.

The paper concludes that: there is no coherent idea of how sensegiving should be made in order to affect the sensemaking processes of human resources, the models emanate from different forms of critiques and the sensegiving cues change accordingly, and accounting for human resources has an ethical dimension.

The choice of model for reporting on human resources affects not only the content of the human resource report (the what and how question), but also affected by which arguments are considered as most efficient in the sensegiving process..

The paper contributes to the understanding of how sensemaking is dependent on which sensegiving cues bring forward in the accounts of human accounts.

The purpose of this paper is seek to analyze how models emanating from the managerial discourse of intellectual capital (IC) relate to how firms disclose IC in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards Business Combinations (IFRS3) in financial statements.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the purchase analyses disclosed by Swedish listed companies in their financial statements during the first year of application of IFRS3 is conducted.

Five main findings result from this investigation. First, the relevance of IC in business combination is confirmed. Second, only a few intangibles are specifically identified and most of them are included within goodwill. Third, a large variety of labels are used when disclosing intangibles. Fourth, synergies represent the most frequent explanation of the goodwill generated by the business combination. Finally, the models examined for guiding firms' reporting on intangibles in the annual report need to be further developed.

The research is an investigation of the first year of application of a new accounting principle which underlies the analysis of intangibles and which represent an opportunity to concretely apply the otherwise mainly theoretical studies carried out by the IC community.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the case for taking employee health and wellbeing into account in some way and to consider a range of objections that might be raised against such exercises.

The paper identifies the existence of a persistent sickness absence as a cause for concern for a range of stakeholders and how it might be accounted for in the light of recent developments within the intellectual capital field. Attention then turns to some of the difficulties such well meaning interventions might encounter, and briefly considers how a self‐accounting approach might in some part overcome these.

The paper finds that a programme of empirical research within the field of employee health and wellbeing is now required to ensure that employee health and wellbeing into account.

While predominantly a discursive contribution to the literature, the paper incorporates some discussion of innovative accounting interventions.

In contrast to viewing sickness absence from a cost perspective, the paper encourages stakeholders to embrace a wider spectrum of ways of seeing to better understand employee health and wellbeing issues in the work place.