Search results

This paper aims to demonstrate the need for universities to include information on intellectual capital in their accounting information system.

An empirical study was conducted to discover the extent to which the different users of university accounting information are now demanding information concerning intellectual capital in order to make the right decisions. To this end a questionnaire was designed and sent to all the members of the Social Councils of Spain's public universities.

The findings show the opinion of university accounting information users regarding the need for universities to publish information on their intellectual capital in order to make the current model of university accounting information more relevant.

The results of this research show the intangible elements about which universities should provide information in order to satisfy their users' new information demands.

No previous research in this area has been conducted for Spanish universities. This paper brings new expertise regarding the traditional information supplied by universities, which needs to be extended to include information on intellectual capital. Giving users access to a type of information that is relevant for good decision‐making constitutes a healthy exercise in transparency for universities.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and validation of an instrument for measuring intellectual capital in the academic research context. The current research context describes a new paradigm of scientific production characterized by interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and the intensification of the relations between the generators of knowledge. In this scenario, traditional measures of intellectual capital do not capture all the variables that make up the environment in which the research activities are carried out. This transformation of research processes suggests the need to bring theories of organizational behavior, more appropriate to an organizational context, to the study of scientific context. Thus, the paper contextualizes the intellectual capital approach, thereby explaining how the different attributes that build it influence scientific productivity and providing a measurement instrument to evaluate relative levels of intellectual capital in an academic research context.

The scale was designed through a double qualitative–quantitative scale development process. The literature on intellectual capital does not provide strong theoretical support for the definition of a specific set of items to be applied in the specific academic research context. Consequently, the scale constructs and observable variables were initially conceptualized through a Delphi panel. This initial set of indicators was empirically validated through a second quantitative stage to a sample of 1,798 Spanish academics. Given that no prior published studies have examined the construct validity of the proposed scale, and the proposed scale is not based on other previously validated scales, the authors used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to assess the internal consistency, using Cronbach’s α to determine reliability.

Drawing on the evidence obtained from a double qualitative–quantitative process, a scale consisting of 47 items was proposed to measure the three dimensions of intellectual capital, namely, the researcher’s human capital, as well as the nature of the social capital and organizational capital of the team in which the scholar is integrated. The process of identifying and validating indicators of intellectual capital allowed the authors to identify certain intangible elements that are key in the research process and that, therefore, determine scientific productivity. Thus, the proposed scale contributes by conceptualizing new variables that could be used to deepen and broaden the study of the determinants of research performance. The contextualization of intellectual capital approach can also help to assess the value of intangibles, offering an external reporting tool and making universities’ social contributions more visible to public and private stakeholders, justifying the efforts made by societies in the generation of academic knowledge.

The empirical analysis was carried out with an initial sample of 1,798 Spanish scholars. The validation of the scale should therefore be confirmed in different national contexts, with larger data sets. Likewise, the use of longitudinal data sets could help to study the effects of intellectual capital in academic research, thereby contributing to the ongoing debate on the determinants of research performance.

From a practical perspective, the instrument could be considered both as a management and an external reporting tool, providing a self-assessment instrument of the levels of intellectual capital. As a management tool, a specific measure of intellectual capital in an academic context could help to identify training needs, the implementation of practices that encourage the capability for building research networks and the development of reports with intellectual capital-related inputs for the justification of the resources received. At an institutional level, the proposed set of indicators also identifies the attributes of scholars linked to higher scientific performance, and the scale could be used as an instrument for selection processes in academic institutions, to develop practices related to the distribution of workload or the publication of intellectual capital indicators of its researchers in a healthy exercise of transparency.

The objective of this study was to analyze the evolution of tourism competitiveness over the years, ascertaining the state of the art and the degree of consensus among scholars on its constituent elements to propose an integrative and updated concept.

A set of 130 definitions on tourism competitiveness formulated between 1999–2018 was analyzed and segmented into three periods, allowing its historical evolution to be ascertained. It is a qualitative and quantitative exploratory research that uses a combination of techniques, namely, content analysis, analysis of co-words and consensus analysis.

The results indicated a low use of elements such as the quality of life and the environment in the authors' definitions during 1999–2018, although these elements were present in the first concept of tourism competitiveness by Crouch and Ritchie (1999, 2003). Another finding of this study shows a reduction in the analysis of tourism competitiveness based on the supply and demand side. Nowadays, the research tends to turn on the basis of the population directly affected. It also reveals the enrichment of the theoretical corpus with new lines of research arising and new groups of scholars of the subject, consequently a new frontier in tourism competitiveness.

The authors recommend deepening the analysis in each category of conceptual elements of tourism competitiveness to identify the origins of the low consensus. The authors also suggest conducting further research on the largest invisible schools of thought on this subject to understand their relations and perspectives, and thus to advance in the theoretical streams of the field. Finally, it is imperative to develop research on new models and monitors of tourism competitiveness that meet its renewed concept and integrate dimensions to consider the perspective of supply, demand, tourists and residents, as well as not excluding the economic bias but including the social side.

Owing to the fact that monitors of tourism competitiveness have practically no variables related to the social, most of the surveys are carried out from the supply or demand perspective, leaving the resident distant from the process. In this way, the results allow authors to indicate that new models of competitiveness measurement should be formulated based on the vision of the community impacted by tourism, i.e. a new version of tourism competitiveness not based on productivity but rather on the social aspect.

The findings of this study contribute to the field literature by offering an integrative concept of tourism competitiveness based on the elements with a higher level of consensus among researchers. Furthermore, the results accentuate a worrying fact regarding the operationalization of this concept, as the theoretical basis is not expressed in the monitors of competitiveness. Thus, nor it is possible in the management of the tourism industry.